PDA

View Full Version : Chemical Weapons found in Iraq...


Pages : [1] 2

Taco John
02-28-2008, 06:48 PM
Pretty conclusive evidence of Chemical Weapons in Iraq...

http://videos.informationclearinghouse.info/fallujah_ING.wmv

penchief
02-28-2008, 06:49 PM
Pretty conclusive evidence of Chemical Weapons in Iraq...

http://videos.informationclearinghouse.info/fallujah_ING.wmv

The root of all money is greed.

Iowanian
02-28-2008, 07:23 PM
Those bad, bad, terrible, aweful 'mer-cans never do ANYTHING nice.

Taco John
02-28-2008, 07:36 PM
Those bad, bad, terrible, aweful 'mer-cans never do ANYTHING nice.



Certainly bombing innocent women and children can't be considered nice.

I realize that some of you don't give a **** about other people. But some of us actually believe in morality, and find it shameful that innocent people are being killed in terrible ways in our names because we want to control the flow of their oil.

Iowanian
02-28-2008, 07:49 PM
Well, Paradise was rumored to be running low on virgins for the terrorists.

Taco John
02-28-2008, 09:09 PM
Well, Paradise was rumored to be running low on virgins for the terrorists.


Dude. :shake:

I understand that your position is that the US can do no wrong. I'm here to tell you that we can and are. We have no business dropping chemical weapons on women and children in Iraq. There's absolutely no moral high-ground there whatsoever.

irishjayhawk
02-28-2008, 09:12 PM
Dude. :shake:

I understand that your position is that the US can do no wrong. I'm here to tell you that we can and are. We have no business dropping chemical weapons on women and children in Iraq. There's absolutely no moral high-ground there whatsoever.

That philosophy is very real and very present. It's really present on the message board. As is ethnocentrism and a lack of empathy.

a1na2
02-28-2008, 09:17 PM
That philosophy is very real and very present. It's really present on the message board. As is ethnocentrism and a lack of empathy.

It's a shame that the world isn't being controlled by those that you feel are better than those that are and will be in power.

Why aren't you attempting to get elected and fix all of the problems that you seem so adept at pointing out? All I can see is someone that talks a good story and is willing to do nothing to facilitate change. It's not just you, there are others here that can damn the U.S. and the Administration for everything they see that is wrong, but are doing nothing other than pointing out what they see as weakness.

irishjayhawk
02-28-2008, 09:21 PM
It's a shame that the world isn't being controlled by those that you feel are better than those that are and will be in power.

Why aren't you attempting to get elected and fix all of the problems that you seem so adept at pointing out? All I can see is someone that talks a good story and is willing to do nothing to facilitate change. It's not just you, there are others here that can damn the U.S. and the Administration for everything they see that is wrong, but are doing nothing other than pointing out what they see as weakness.

I would make a great president. :D

Alas, I am no where near charismatic enough. :(

Pitt Gorilla
02-28-2008, 09:29 PM
It's a shame that the world isn't being controlled by those that you feel are better than those that are and will be in power.

Why aren't you attempting to get elected and fix all of the problems that you seem so adept at pointing out? All I can see is someone that talks a good story and is willing to do nothing to facilitate change. It's not just you, there are others here that can damn the U.S. and the Administration for everything they see that is wrong, but are doing nothing other than pointing out what they see as weakness.Do you have a take on the video?

Taco John
02-28-2008, 09:30 PM
It's a shame that the world isn't being controlled by those that you feel are better than those that are and will be in power.

Why aren't you attempting to get elected and fix all of the problems that you seem so adept at pointing out? All I can see is someone that talks a good story and is willing to do nothing to facilitate change. It's not just you, there are others here that can damn the U.S. and the Administration for everything they see that is wrong, but are doing nothing other than pointing out what they see as weakness.




Let me be clear: I'm not only damning the administration. I'm also damning the evil ignorance in those who can see videos like this, fully understand that we're dropping chemical weapons on innocent women and children, and then attempt to make defenses for such a defenseless act.

In my opinion, it takes an evil kind of heartlessness that betrays the proud heritage of this country to accept this kind of wickedness -- possessed with demon pride...

It's amazing to me that so many people, many who consider themselves Christians, could be so greatly decieved that they'd not stop for a second to question the terrible ruthlessness of these actions.

Logical
02-28-2008, 09:32 PM
I would make a great president. :D

Alas, I am no where near charismatic enough. :(Vote for Irishjayhawk, he will do good.:D

a1na2
02-28-2008, 09:34 PM
Let me be clear: I'm not only damning the administration. I'm also damning the evil ignorance in those who can see videos like this, fully understand that we're dropping chemical weapons on innocent women and children, and then attempt to make defenses for such a defenseless act.

In my opinion, it takes an evil kind of heartlessness that betrays the proud heritage of this country to accept this kind of wickedness -- possessed with demon pride...

Have you ever considered the possibility that the video is not real? Have you ever considered that what you see on the internet may not always be true?

You are very clear, you can see something that can easily be used to damn the country and those that you feel are the evil ignorant, but you can see other videos and see news stories that tell of the things that are happening in Iraq and around the world but you let them go because they do not agree with your agenda of hatred for certain groups or people in this country.

Taco John
02-28-2008, 09:36 PM
...possessed with demon pride...

a1na2
02-28-2008, 09:36 PM
Do you have a take on the video?

I do, but I have not been able to validate the integrity of the video.

How about you, do you believe it is fully accurate or do you want to verify it's validity?

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-28-2008, 09:39 PM
Let me be clear: I'm not only damning the administration. I'm also damning the evil ignorance in those who can see videos like this, fully understand that we're dropping chemical weapons on innocent women and children, and then attempt to make defenses for such a defenseless act.

In my opinion, it takes an evil kind of heartlessness that betrays the proud heritage of this country to accept this kind of wickedness -- possessed with demon pride...

It's amazing to me that so many people, many who consider themselves Christians, could be so greatly decieved that they'd not stop for a second to question the terrible ruthlessness of these actions.

You would really like my master's thesis. Seriously.

Pitt Gorilla
02-28-2008, 09:40 PM
I do, but I have not been able to validate the integrity of the video.

How about you, do you believe it is fully accurate or do you want to verify it's validity?I have no idea what "fully accurate" means. Were the images real? Most probably. If someone smoked one of my kids, would I be mad as hell? Absolutely.

Pitt Gorilla
02-28-2008, 09:41 PM
Have you ever considered the possibility that the video is not real? Have you ever considered that what you see on the internet may not always be true?

You are very clear, you can see something that can easily be used to damn the country and those that you feel are the evil ignorant, but you can see other videos and see news stories that tell of the things that are happening in Iraq and around the world but you let them go because they do not agree with your agenda of hatred for certain groups or people in this country.Are you suggesting that both can't be fake/real?

Mr. Kotter
02-28-2008, 09:46 PM
"There are too many people who imagine that there is something sophisticated about always believing the best of those who hate your country, and the worst of those who defend it."

--Margaret Thatcher, 2003

banyon
02-28-2008, 09:47 PM
.

ROYC75
02-28-2008, 09:53 PM
Let me be clear: I'm not only damning the administration. I'm also damning the evil ignorance in those who can see videos like this, fully understand that we're dropping chemical weapons on innocent women and children, and then attempt to make defenses for such a defenseless act.

In my opinion, it takes an evil kind of heartlessness that betrays the proud heritage of this country to accept this kind of wickedness -- possessed with demon pride...

It's amazing to me that so many people, many who consider themselves Christians, could be so greatly decieved that they'd not stop for a second to question the terrible ruthlessness of these actions.

Yes, War is cruel, it destroys all sense of humanity. But not knowing the situation at hand, I don't think we can just tell the enemy to stop, lay down their weapons and we will interogate all people in the area 1st before continuing the war. Their is always casualties in war, many innoncent victims die, been that way since the beginning of time.

Logical
02-28-2008, 09:55 PM
Let me be clear: I'm not only damning the administration. I'm also damning the evil ignorance in those who can see videos like this, fully understand that we're dropping chemical weapons on innocent women and children, and then attempt to make defenses for such a defenseless act.

In my opinion, it takes an evil kind of heartlessness that betrays the proud heritage of this country to accept this kind of wickedness -- possessed with demon pride...

It's amazing to me that so many people, many who consider themselves Christians, could be so greatly decieved that they'd not stop for a second to question the terrible ruthlessness of these actions.

I think you have your priorities right, too bad more people don't. I really don't want my country being compared to the old Soviet Union or the Germany of the 40s.:doh!:

Logical
02-28-2008, 10:00 PM
Have you ever considered the possibility that the video is not real? Have you ever considered that what you see on the internet may not always be true?

You are very clear, you can see something that can easily be used to damn the country and those that you feel are the evil ignorant, but you can see other videos and see news stories that tell of the things that are happening in Iraq and around the world but you let them go because they do not agree with your agenda of hatred for certain groups or people in this country.Well if it is fake, let me be clear that I still repudiate the acts shown, because I don't believe that is what I want my country to represent even in a surreal video.

HolmeZz
02-28-2008, 10:02 PM
.

No Africa?

a1na2
02-28-2008, 10:05 PM
Yes, War is cruel, it destroys all sense of humanity. But not knowing the situation at hand, I don't think we can just tell the enemy to stop, lay down their weapons and we will interogate all people in the area 1st before continuing the war. Their is always casualties in war, many innoncent victims die, been that way since the beginning of time.

Roy, you are absolutely right but I fear that you are talking on deaf ears. We used napalm in Vietnam for several reasons, defoliation was one of the uses another use was to destroy the enemy and their hiding places. It was banned because it was felt to be inhumane. All the while the enemy was booby trapping little kids and using them to maim and kill our troops, and our soldiers and Marines were called baby killers!

I have yet to hear anyone explain which part of war was humane or acceptable. The title of this thread is misleading; the bombs, IF USED, were not chemical weapons but incendiary weapons that were made of a chemical composition just like every other bomb we have in our inventory. Cyclotol and Octol are chemical compositions of TNT and RDX in varying percentages to effect the explosion, fragmentation and incendiary devices inside the weapons.

Which part of the IED's that have been used against our troops and the civilians are humane? How many innocents have been killed due to the insurgency from inside the country as well as the insurgents that are not and have never been residents of Iraq?

I assure anyone reading this thread that the U.S. has killed innocent people, but I also assure you that the death count of the civilians are less attributed to the U.S. weapons and more attributed to the insurgents IED's than those against the U.S. efforts in the war would admit.

I think that what amazes me is the people yelling the loudest have never had the privileged to serve their country in the military and learn how the military machine works. It's not to their shame that they didn't have the opportunity to serve, but it is to their shame to form opinions of those that do serve and serve honorably from their first day to their last day.

Logical
02-28-2008, 10:07 PM
No Africa?Too depressing, starvation and aids, America just ignores Africa.

irishjayhawk
02-28-2008, 10:08 PM
"There are too many people who imagine that there is something sophisticated about always believing the best of those who hate your country, and the worst of those who defend it."

--Margaret Thatcher, 2003

Two things:

1) That came from Thatcher. ;)
2) I have my own quote:

"There's too many people who imagine there is something intellectual about always believing the best of your country and the worst of any other country."

3) Seriously, though, I don't understand the quote. It implies there is no grey. No admitting your country is good AND bad. It implies no one can have empathy. It implies a negativity in what it is saying. And therefore implies a certain nationalism also found in Nazi Germany.

irishjayhawk
02-28-2008, 10:10 PM
Roy, you are absolutely right but I fear that you are talking on deaf ears. We used napalm in Vietnam for several reasons, defoliation was one of the uses another use was to destroy the enemy and their hiding places. It was banned because it was felt to be inhumane. All the while the enemy was booby trapping little kids and using them to maim and kill our troops, and our soldiers and Marines were called baby killers!

I have yet to hear anyone explain which part of war was humane or acceptable. The title of this thread is misleading; the bombs, IF USED, were not chemical weapons but incendiary weapons that were made of a chemical composition just like every other bomb we have in our inventory. Cyclotol and Octol are chemical compositions of TNT and RDX in varying percentages to effect the explosion, fragmentation and incendiary devices inside the weapons.

Which part of the IED's that have been used against our troops and the civilians are humane? How many innocents have been killed due to the insurgency from inside the country as well as the insurgents that are not and have never been residents of Iraq?

I assure anyone reading this thread that the U.S. has killed innocent people, but I also assure you that the death count of the civilians are less attributed to the U.S. weapons and more attributed to the insurgents IED's than those against the U.S. efforts in the war would admit.

I think that what amazes me is the people yelling the loudest have never had the privileged to serve their country in the military and learn how the military machine works. It's not to their shame that they didn't have the opportunity to serve, but it is to their shame to form opinions of those that do serve and serve honorably from their first day to their last day.

Problem with this is that you have no empathy. Would you use IEDs against invaders of the US?

We invaded them. We went into and still occupy THEIR land, country, and culture. Would we not fight the same intrusion on all of ours?

Taco John
02-28-2008, 10:11 PM
"There are too many people who imagine that there is something sophisticated about always believing the best of those who hate your country, and the worst of those who defend it."

--Margaret Thatcher, 2003

Yawn...


An empty quote that has nothing to do with this conversation. The Iraq war has nothing to do with the defense of the United States.

a1na2
02-28-2008, 10:15 PM
Well if it is fake, let me be clear that I still repudiate the acts shown, because I don't believe that is what I want my country to represent even in a surreal video.

You are clear in the fact that you don't realize that the accusations in the video are just that, accusations.

Which part of war is it that you misunderstand? War is not a clean and pretty happening on a nice spring day. War is dirty, war kills young people as well as innocent people.

Can you, or anyone validate that those that were shown in the video were wounded by U.S. action? How many innocent people were wounded due to IED's employed by insurgents? How many of the innocent people were wounded by U.S. bombs? That number can't be quantified, but what we do know is that the enemy has used people that were unaware of what they were doing and murdered them as well as many innocents in the same action.

What you see as a representation of the U.S. is only an accusation by a group out of the UK that has an obvious bias against the war and against the U.S.

I don't know how much of the video can actually be attributed to U.S. actions and the actions of others and neither do you.

We are involved in a war, we cannot simply walk away as many of you want. Right or wrong we are there and we need to end the war as quickly as we can but we cannot end it and leave the people there in a more hazardous situation than what is there now. The possibility of more deaths of innocents may be multiplied to numbers that would be attributed to the administration that is in power after the pullout.

As stated, war is not good but walking out in the middle may cause worse problems than we have now.

Taco John
02-28-2008, 10:15 PM
Yes, War is cruel, it destroys all sense of humanity. But not knowing the situation at hand, I don't think we can just tell the enemy to stop, lay down their weapons and we will interogate all people in the area 1st before continuing the war. Their is always casualties in war, many innoncent victims die, been that way since the beginning of time.



Women and children are being killed by our chemical weapons so that we can control the flow of oil because we were so stupid that we delinked the dollar from gold, and attached it to their oil. Their terrorists are fighting against us because we have taken over their land by buying off their dictators and keeping them in our pockets. The enemy isn't going to lay down their weapons because they perceive themselves as fighters for their land and culture, just like we would if the tables were turned on us.

irishjayhawk
02-28-2008, 10:16 PM
Yawn...


An empty quote that has nothing to do with this conversation. The Iraq war has nothing to do with the defense of the United States.

He was referencing my point about America can do no harm (your pointing out of Iowanian's opinion).

a1na2
02-28-2008, 10:20 PM
Problem with this is that you have no empathy. Would you use IEDs against invaders of the US?

We invaded them. We went into and still occupy THEIR land, country, and culture. Would we not fight the same intrusion on all of ours?

I would not use IED's strapped to kids or women that are handicapped and kill them just to get at the enemy.

We invaded Iraq, the insurgency are a multinational force. The percentage of Iraqi's that are insurgents as compared to Iranian, Syrian and others just might surprise you. I guess if we were invaded the Mexicans would all come up here and help us set off the IED's.

Tell me, where are the typical Iraqi's are getting all of the explosives that are being used as IED's? I'm sure that the average Iraqi, as well as the above average Iraqi, does not have an arsenal of explosives and weapons hidden away in their homes.

Your understanding of the situation there is limited and obviously biased.

a1na2
02-28-2008, 10:23 PM
Women and children are being killed by our chemical weapons so that we can control the flow of oil because we were so stupid that we delinked the dollar from gold, and attached it to their oil. Their terrorists are fighting against us because we have taken over their land by buying off their dictators and keeping them in our pockets. The enemy isn't going to lay down their weapons because they perceive themselves as fighters for their land and culture, just like we would if the tables were turned on us.

Your assertion is asinine. We are not using Chemical weapons as you are trying to claim. All of our ordinance is made of chemical mixes to achieve the desired effect. Napalm is not a chemical weapon (even if we were using it) it is a chemical composition.

The Chemical weapons that you are attempting to sell here are not being used. Ricin is a chemical weapon as well as many others. The U.S. is not using those types of weapons.

a1na2
02-28-2008, 10:25 PM
Too depressing, starvation and aids, America just ignores Africa.

What makes you say that? Have you ever seen the troops that are in Africa from time to time that are on humanitarian missions? I was there for a short while in the summer of 2001. Africa is not being ignored, I will admit that the large amounts of money that you might be referring to is not going there.

irishjayhawk
02-28-2008, 10:30 PM
I would not use IED's strapped to kids or women that are handicapped and kill them just to get at the enemy.

Again, ethnocentrism. I do think that most of the world would frown upon that, but I digress.


We invaded Iraq, the insurgency are a multinational force. The percentage of Iraqi's that are insurgents as compared to Iranian, Syrian and others just might surprise you. I guess if we were invaded the Mexicans would all come up here and help us set off the IED's.

We are the insurgency. Don't let the media or others tell you otherwise. And just who is the "insurgency" made up of? Who gets to decide who is and isn't an insurgent? Where's the line for angry Iraqi at our occupation and an insurgent?


Tell me, where are the typical Iraqi's are getting all of the explosives that are being used as IED's? I'm sure that the average Iraqi, as well as the above average Iraqi, does not have an arsenal of explosives and weapons hidden away in their homes.

So says you. Again, ethnocentrism and a lack of empathy. You don't think there are people in the US - ordinary people - who can get the stuff or means to make an IED? Really?


Your understanding of the situation there is limited and obviously biased.

Or, yours is. But neither gets us anywhere.

irishjayhawk
02-28-2008, 10:32 PM
What makes you say that? Have you ever seen the troops that are in Africa from time to time that are on humanitarian missions? I was there for a short while in the summer of 2001. Africa is not being ignored, I will admit that the large amounts of money that you might be referring to is not going there.

Exactly. Less money and they're far worse off than Iraq under Saddam. There's no troops overthrowing the oppressive governments. None of that because there's no point; there's no oil.

a1na2
02-28-2008, 10:40 PM
Again, ethnocentrism. I do think that most of the world would frown upon that, but I digress.

You make no sense here, but that is expected.

We are the insurgency. Don't let the media or others tell you otherwise. And just who is the "insurgency" made up of? Who gets to decide who is and isn't an insurgent? Where's the line for angry Iraqi at our occupation and an insurgent?

We are not the insurgents, you need to take a lesson in war. You know better but are just arguing to support you pointless stand.

So says you. Again, ethnocentrism and a lack of empathy. You don't think there are people in the US - ordinary people - who can get the stuff or means to make an IED? Really?

Have you ever researched the IED's that we have captured and disarmed? Do you know what grade of explosives are being used? You are talking about IED's as if they were made up in grandpa's garage and can be transported in a vehicle. The IED's that you speak of to have the same explosive capacity that we have seen in Iraq would have to be in a truck much the same as the one McVey used in Oklahoma City.

Or, yours is. But neither gets us anywhere.

I might be biased, but I've been in wars. I have a little experience that backs my bias, your bias is fueled by politics and lack of experience.

raybec 4
02-28-2008, 10:42 PM
Exactly. Less money and they're far worse off than Iraq under Saddam. There's no troops overthrowing the oppressive governments. None of that because there's no point; there's no oil.

I saw Iraq under Saddam in 1990 and I saw Somalia in 1995 both first hand if you had an educated basis for your "far worse" statement that is not it. I am curious to know if either you or Taco have ever spent any time in defense of our country or the freedoms you have to speak so poorly of it?

Taco John
02-28-2008, 11:08 PM
I saw Iraq under Saddam in 1990 and I saw Somalia in 1995 both first hand if you had an educated basis for your "far worse" statement that is not it. I am curious to know if either you or Taco have ever spent any time in defense of our country or the freedoms you have to speak so poorly of it?


No, I have not spent any time in defense of our country, save my efforts to waken people up to the fact that our country is being stolen right from under our noses. And as far as I know, neither have you. We've never had cause in our generation to defend the United States from foreign invaders. Nobody would dare try to invade us (except through illegal immigration, which our government seems hell bent on allowing).

God bless you for your service to the nations of Iraq and Somalia though. I'm sure the people there are very appreciative of you putting your life on the line on their behalf. I personally would prefer that Uncle Sam had kept you home, rather than engaging in entangling alliances and foreign wars of conquest.

I personally would never join the military unless I knew that blood that I might shed was in defense of my own family, countrymen, and for my own country. Personally, I'm not interested in becoming a footsoldier in the army of multinational oil companies, under the guise of a US banner. I apologize if my characterization stings. It's not meant as a slap at you. I'm angry that our government has gotten so far away from the original intent.

irishjayhawk
02-28-2008, 11:09 PM
I saw Iraq under Saddam in 1990 and I saw Somalia in 1995 both first hand if you had an educated basis for your "far worse" statement that is not it. I am curious to know if either you or Taco have ever spent any time in defense of our country or the freedoms you have to speak so poorly of it?

Well, I do not like when the soldiers are respected for doing something they're not. For example, Iraq. They are not fighting for my liberties, freedoms, or safety. I didn't think Iraq was a threat to me then nor do I now. So don't say they're doing things they aren't.

Call me callous, call me whatever you like, but that's simply the way I feel. There's too much nationalism now and it's actually quite frightening.


As for "worse", I don't have a way to back it up. However, from the pictures I've seen, stories I've read, and the fact that one has been neglected for way longer than the other, I feel pretty confident in the opinion that Africa is worse than Iraq (before, during and after Saddam). Yep, it's conjecture, but I wouldn't say it's necessarily uneducated but rather un-firsthand-accounted.

irishjayhawk
02-28-2008, 11:13 PM
You make no sense here, but that is expected.Explain what doesn't make sense, please.


We are not the insurgents, you need to take a lesson in war. You know better but are just arguing to support you pointless stand.


Please explain how we are not insurgents with what we did? We invaded their country. How are we not insurgents too? It's the old "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist/insurgent/enemy".


Have you ever researched the IED's that we have captured and disarmed? Do you know what grade of explosives are being used? You are talking about IED's as if they were made up in grandpa's garage and can be transported in a vehicle. The IED's that you speak of to have the same explosive capacity that we have seen in Iraq would have to be in a truck much the same as the one McVey used in Oklahoma City.


You do realize that it's also the middle east. Further, there isn't much regulation on firearms or anything of that nature over there. You do realize that the "black market" is much bigger over there than it is here. I don't understand how it's impossible to think they can have gotten this routinely. I know that if another country invaded here, I'd be all over getting myself defense products - no matter where, what kind, or how dangerous.


I might be biased, but I've been in wars. I have a little experience that backs my bias, your bias is fueled by politics and lack of experience.

Yes, lack of experience is the new thing. If in doubt, they have a lack of experience. You know, rather than addressing their claims.

Again, this gets us no where.

irishjayhawk
02-28-2008, 11:14 PM
I personally would never join the military unless I knew that blood that I might shed was in defense of my own family, countrymen, and for my own country. Personally, I'm not interested in becoming a footsoldier in the army of multinational oil companies, under the guise of a US banner. I apologize if my characterization stings. It's not meant as a slap at you. I'm angry that our government has gotten so far away from the original intent.


And that's also what I would amend to my post below yours.

a1na2
02-28-2008, 11:18 PM
Again, this gets us no where.

Yet you spend so much time trying to convince me that ... what we are getting no where?

Well Duh!

irishjayhawk
02-28-2008, 11:19 PM
Yet you spend so much time trying to convince me that ... what we are getting no where?

Well Duh!

With the bias argument you injected. :shake:

a1na2
02-28-2008, 11:21 PM
No, I have not spent any time in defense of our country, save my efforts to waken people up to the fact that our country is being stolen right from under our noses. And as far as I know, neither have you. We've never had cause in our generation to defend the United States from foreign invaders. Nobody would dare try to invade us (except through illegal immigration, which our government seems hell bent on allowing).

God bless you for your service to the nations of Iraq and Somalia though. I'm sure the people there are very appreciative of you putting your life on the line on their behalf. I personally would prefer that Uncle Sam had kept you home, rather than engaging in entangling alliances and foreign wars of conquest.

I personally would never join the military unless I knew that blood that I might shed was in defense of my own family, countrymen, and for my own country. Personally, I'm not interested in becoming a footsoldier in the army of multinational oil companies, under the guise of a US banner. I apologize if my characterization stings. It's not meant as a slap at you. I'm angry that our government has gotten so far away from the original intent.

Soldiers are sword to defend the Constitution, and then get sent off to violate it in wars that we shouldn't be involved in, for reasons that we have ignored the rule of law that the Contstitution has laid out. In the case of Iraq, it's the control of oil because our monetary system relies on it for backing.

:lame:

That's a long winded way of saying that you don't have the guts to defend your country.

"I'll do it if it fits into my category of defending my country." :BS:

raybec 4
02-28-2008, 11:21 PM
No, I have not spent any time in defense of our country. And as far as I know, neither have you. We've never had cause in our generation to defend America. Nobody would dare try to invade us (except through illegal immigration, which our government seems hell bent on allowing).

God bless you for your service to the nations of Iraq and Somalia though. I'm sure the people there are very appreciative of you putting your life on the line on their behalf. I personally would prefer that Uncle Sam had kept you home, rather than engaging in entangling alliances and foreign wars of conquest.

I personally would never join the military unless I knew that blood that I might shed was in defense of my own family, countrymen, and for my own country. Personally, I'm not interested in becoming a footsoldier in the army of multinational oil companies, under the guise of a US banner. I apologize if my characterization stings. It's not meant as a slap at you. I'm angry that our government has gotten so far away from the original intent.

I am sad to see that two people who are obviously educated believe that you must participate in an armed conflict on American soil in order to defend our country.

I respect your opinions and feelings although I do not agree. I firmly believe that all it takes for someone to defend our nation is for them to stand up in her name. The fact that someone has served in a time of peace does not make that persons service any less important.

I am truly greatful that we have young men and women who are willing to fight and die for this country. All it would ever take for us to lose our freedom is to lose those who are willing to defend it.

a1na2
02-28-2008, 11:22 PM
With the bias argument you injected. :shake:

Why don't you take a trip to Berkeley and join the Marines and get back to me?

Jenson71
02-28-2008, 11:23 PM
It sounds like Baghdad has a big sewage problem. There's basically a pool of sewage, really affecting water, health, and vegetation. Maybe cholera rates will go up. It's hard to work on infrastucture when there is a war going on.

Taco John
02-28-2008, 11:27 PM
I am sad to see that two people who are obviously educated believe that you must participate in an armed conflict on American soil in order to defend our country.

I don't believe that at all. I believe that we were defending our country in WWII.

But I don't believe that Iraq has anything to do with defending our country. And I think Afghanistan is dubious, given the fact that we've spent more time protecting the pipeline there than developing that democracy, and have lost the faith of the people in the process.



I respect your opinions and feelings although I do not agree. I firmly believe that all it takes for someone to defend our nation is for them to stand up in her name. The fact that someone has served in a time of peace does not make that persons service any less important.

I don't think so either. I think a strong defense is important, and I have all the respect in the world for people who would choose to join the defense force. But I believe that the government has misused their service, and in the process made America LESS safe.


I am truly greatful that we have young men and women who are willing to fight and die for this country. All it would ever take for us to lose our freedom is to lose those who are willing to defend it.

I too am greatful that we have young men and women who are willing to fight and die for this country. I just wish we wouldn't send them off to die for dubious reasons. Lives are too important to squander. Even the lives of the innocents in Iraq.

a1na2
02-28-2008, 11:37 PM
I don't believe that at all. I believe that we were defending our country in WWII.

But I don't believe that Iraq has anything to do with defending our country. And I think Afghanistan is dubious, given the fact that we've spent more time protecting the pipeline there than developing that democracy, and have lost the faith of the people in the process.





I don't think so either. I think a strong defense is important, and I have all the respect in the world for people who would choose to join the defense force. But I believe that the government has misused their service, and in the process made America LESS safe.




I too am greatful that we have young men and women who are willing to fight and die for this country. I just wish we wouldn't send them off to die for dubious reasons. Lives are too important to squander. Even the lives of the innocents in Iraq.

Basically what TJ is saying is that he doesn't have the guts to serve.

BTW TJ, just when did Germany attack the U.S.? When did they threaten to overthrow the U.S.?

Once again your argument is one of convenience.

Face it, you wouldn't join the military unless you were drafted and forced to do so and I even have doubts that you would stay around to accept that order.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-28-2008, 11:39 PM
Honestly, is there really much of a difference between patriotism, and rooting for laundry?

It's just a matter of geography, just like religion.

I will now step into my flame shelter.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-28-2008, 11:41 PM
Basically what TJ is saying is that he doesn't have the guts to serve.

BTW TJ, just when did Germany attack the U.S.? When did they threaten to overthrow the U.S.?

Once again your argument is one of convenience.

Face it, you wouldn't join the military unless you were drafted and forced to do so and I even have doubts that you would stay around to accept that order.

I'd say that whole declaration of WAR against the US may have been a thinly veiled threat of violence. I know, crazy.

Taco John
02-28-2008, 11:45 PM
Let me ask you something.

During the first Gulf war, in which we played both sides of the fence, telling Saddam that we'd wouldn't prevent him from invading Kuwait, and then beating him into submission after he did -- George HW Bush called for the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam to overthrow him. When they did, we sat back and let Saddaam massacre them with helicopter gunships. We then put fierce embargoes on them, wiping out their middle class, while Saddaam and his select elite lived it up.

So now my question: Which part of this am I supposed to be proud of? I'm not impugning the actions of the soldiers. I'm talking about the people making the decisions. What is there to be proud of here? Where is the defense of the United States in any of these actions?

Now, we're back in Iraq, and we learn that we've been killing and maiming innocent people using weapons that use absolutely no discretion. We're wiping out thousands of homes of innocent men, women, and children. All for what? This nation posed no physical threat to us whatsoever. Nor did they pose a threat to their neighbors. They were pretty much a paper tiger.

I respect that there are people who would put their lives on the line to defend me any my family. I just wish that they were here to do it, rather than fighting in Iraq for reasons that have nothing to do with the defense of American soil.

irishjayhawk
02-28-2008, 11:48 PM
I am sad to see that two people who are obviously educated believe that you must participate in an armed conflict on American soil in order to defend our country.

Not what I believe, but it does have truth to it. Like TJ, I think that WWII was defending our country.

Iraq, however, is not. Afghanistan, however, is not. The former is an oil war; the latter is a blame game facade for a war.


I respect your opinions and feelings although I do not agree. I firmly believe that all it takes for someone to defend our nation is for them to stand up in her name. The fact that someone has served in a time of peace does not make that persons service any less important.

In a time of peace? We are never in a time of peace because we are increasingly a globalized world. There is no "peace". Peace has been relegated to the "ideal" realm.


I am truly greatful that we have young men and women who are willing to fight and die for this country. All it would ever take for us to lose our freedom is to lose those who are willing to defend it.

Very true. Good thing I'm not unwilling to defend it. But I'm not about to go fight on behalf of a government who's in bed with oil lobbyists. Nor a government who's done more to take away freedoms than Saddam ever did. It's all about the boogey-man.


I don't believe that at all. I believe that we were defending our country in WWII.

Yep.


But I don't believe that Iraq has anything to do with defending our country. And I think Afghanistan is dubious, given the fact that we've spent more time protecting the pipeline there than developing that democracy, and have lost the faith of the people in the process.

I'll also draw the similarities, again, between our conquest for "democracy/capitalism" and Russia's conquest for "Communism".


I don't think so either. I think a strong defense is important, and I have all the respect in the world for people who would choose to join the defense force. But I believe that the government has misused their service, and in the process made America LESS safe.

And given the illusion of safety.


I too am greatful that we have young men and women who are willing to fight and die for this country. I just wish we wouldn't send them off to die for dubious reasons. Lives are too important to squander. Even the lives of the innocents in Iraq.

Yep.

Honestly, is there really much of a difference between patriotism, and rooting for laundry?

It's just a matter of geography, just like religion.

I will now step into my flame shelter.

Excellent comparison and point.

Why don't you take a trip to Berkeley and join the Marines and get back to me?

Nothing to see but a textbook ad hominem. Move along. Hey, BEP, take note.

a1na2
02-28-2008, 11:48 PM
I'd say that whole declaration of WAR against the US may have been a thinly veiled threat of violence. I know, crazy.

The Germans were attacking one of our long time friends in England.

We got into the war because our allies were involved and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. It was something that we needed to be in, but the loss of life in WWII was 60,000,000 people. There was never an honest threat for anyone to occupy the U.S. This makes WWII more controversial than the war in Iraq IMO.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-28-2008, 11:48 PM
Let me ask you something.

During the first Gulf war, in which we played both sides of the fence, telling Saddam that we'd wouldn't prevent him from invading Kuwait, and then beating him into submission after he did -- George HW Bush called for the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam to overthrow him. When they did, we sat back and let Saddaam massacre them with helicopter gunships. We then put fierce embargoes on them, wiping out their middle class, while Saddaam and his select elite lived it up.

So now my question: Which part of this am I supposed to be proud of? I'm not impugning the actions of the soldiers. I'm talking about the people making the decisions. What is there to be proud of here? Where is the defense of the United States in any of these actions?

Now, we're back in Iraq, and we learn that we've been killing and maiming innocent people using weapons that use absolutely no discretion. We're wiping out thousands of homes of innocent men, women, and children. All for what? This nation posed no physical threat to us whatsoever. Nor did they pose a threat to their neighbors. They were pretty much a paper tiger.

I respect that there are people who would put their lives on the line to defend me any my family. I just wish that they were here to do it, rather than fighting in Iraq for reasons that have nothing to do with the defense of American soil.

You're supposed to be proud of the part where we encouraged Saddam to invade our sworn enemy, only to rearm said enemy in order to finance killing squads in Central America. The offshoot of that 8 year war left Saddam broke ass, so we told him we'd turn a blind eye to the Kuwait Invasion.

America, F*ck yeah!!

irishjayhawk
02-28-2008, 11:49 PM
Honestly, is there really much of a difference between patriotism, and rooting for laundry?

It's just a matter of geography, just like religion.

I will now step into my flame shelter.
Actually, I do have a question here:

Where do you draw the line between patriotism and, say, nationalism?

irishjayhawk
02-28-2008, 11:51 PM
The Germans were attacking one of our long time friends in England.

We got into the war because our allies were involved and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. It was something that we needed to be in, but the loss of life in WWII was 60,000,000 people. There was never an honest threat for anyone to occupy the U.S. This makes WWII more controversial than the war in Iraq IMO.

Well, you fail to account for the MASSIVE genocide. As well as downplay the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Before Pearl, we were neutral. After, we pledged. Pretty simple. Iraq, on the other hand, did neither. They didn't attack us.

Taco John
02-28-2008, 11:53 PM
Basically what TJ is saying is that he doesn't have the guts to serve.

BTW TJ, just when did Germany attack the U.S.? When did they threaten to overthrow the U.S.?

Once again your argument is one of convenience.

Face it, you wouldn't join the military unless you were drafted and forced to do so and I even have doubts that you would stay around to accept that order.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I would not accept being drafted period. I don't believe in slavery. I'm not going to become a slave to fight in Iraq, or anywhere else overseas. And for that matter, I don't believe there is any legitimate cause to do so. I believe the wars being fought overseas now have little to do with protecting the United States, and more to do with enriching the military industrial complex. If you think that I'm embarassed over this, think again.

I, would, however, join a militia to protect American lives in the case of invasion here, however. I will never, however, sign my life and limb over to the federal government to spend at their discretion. I've seen how wasteful Washington is. No thank you.

a1na2
02-28-2008, 11:55 PM
Well, you fail to account for the MASSIVE genocide. As well as downplay the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Before Pearl, we were neutral. After, we pledged. Pretty simple. Iraq, on the other hand, did neither. They didn't attack us.

I suppose the promise after 9/11 that if you harbored terrorists that we were coming is something you forgot. Iraq had Al Queda training camps that were not only allowed but supported by Saddam.

That's OK, though. You are entitled to your opinion. You are not; however, entitled to attempt to rewrite history.

I class you with those that would revise history to read the way you would have it to be rather than a true record of events.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-28-2008, 11:55 PM
Actually, I do have a question here:

Where do you draw the line between patriotism and, say, nationalism?

I think a better question would be patriotism and jingoism.

Nationalism could be considered synonymous with either patriotism or jingoism, but those two terms draw sharper contrasts with one another.

Honestly, probably 90% of 'patriotism' is jingoism

Freedom Fries=Jingoism
Supporting the diversity of your culture and the quirks of your country=Patriotism

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-28-2008, 11:57 PM
Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I would not accept being drafted period. I don't believe in slavery. I'm not going to become a slave to fight in Iraq, or anywhere else overseas. And for that matter, I don't believe there is any legitimate cause to do so. I believe the wars being fought overseas now have little to do with protecting the United States, and more to do with enriching the military industrial complex. If you think that I'm embarassed over this, think again.

Weapons not food, not homes, not shoes
Not need, just feed tha war cannibal animal
I walk tha corner to tha rubble that used to be a
Library
Line up to tha mind cemetery
What we don't know keeps tha contracts alive an
Movin'
They dont gotta burn tha books they just remove 'em
While arms warehouses fill as quick as tha cells
Rally round tha family, pockets full of shells

Taco John
02-28-2008, 11:58 PM
I suppose the promise after 9/11 that if you harbored terrorists that we were coming is something you forgot. Iraq had Al Queda training camps that were not only allowed but supported by Saddam.

Apparently YOU forgot it, because Osama has been hanging out in Pakistan releasing greatest hits albums for the last 7 years with little worries, apparently.

Logical
02-28-2008, 11:59 PM
....As stated, war is not good but walking out in the middle may cause worse problems than we have now.You might be right it might cause worse problems, then again it might just cause Iraq to get its act together and overcome its problems in a way that fits that region. Not some US imposed idea of what should be under an incredibly unpopular occupation.

a1na2
02-28-2008, 11:59 PM
Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I would not accept being drafted period. I don't believe in slavery. I'm not going to become a slave to fight in Iraq, or anywhere else overseas. And for that matter, I don't believe there is any legitimate cause to do so. I believe the wars being fought overseas now have little to do with protecting the United States, and more to do with enriching the military industrial complex. If you think that I'm embarassed over this, think again.

I, would, however, join a militia to protect American lives in the case of invasion here, however. I will never, however, sign my life and limb over to the federal government to spend at their discretion. I've seen how wasteful Washington is. No thank you.

OK everyone, we have it from his own mouth. Taco John is a coward. He would not defend his country if called to duty.

Your comments above only emphasize the fact that you don't have a clue as to what it takes to defend our country. You have no clue as to what the threats to the U.S. even are and that is truly shameful.

The militia that you would join would be the one that pledges to overthrow the U.S. Government. You aren't fooling anyone.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-28-2008, 11:59 PM
OK everyone, we have it from his own mouth. Taco John is a coward. He would not defend his country if called to duty.

Your comments above only emphasize the fact that you don't have a clue as to what it takes to defend our country. You have no clue as to what the threats to the U.S. even are and that is truly shameful.

The militia that you would join would be the one that pledges to overthrow the U.S. Government. You aren't fooling anyone.


IJH, This is jingoism.

Logical
02-29-2008, 12:01 AM
OK everyone, we have it from his own mouth. Taco John is a coward. He would not defend his country if called to duty.

Your comments above only emphasize the fact that you don't have a clue as to what it takes to defend our country. You have no clue as to what the threats to the U.S. even are and that is truly shameful.

The militia that you would join would be the one that pledges to overthrow the U.S. Government. You aren't fooling anyone.
Hell are you a freaking imbecile, he said he would defend his country but not be used as a pawn of the US effort to empire build. Frankly I would expect no less and no more of my son.

a1na2
02-29-2008, 12:02 AM
You might be right it might cause worse problems, then again it might just cause Iraq to get its act together and overcome its problems in a way that fits that region. Not some US imposed idea of what should be under an incredibly unpopular occupation.

With your feelings about the military and the war I'm surprised that you admit to work in the defense industry. An honorable man would quit that position and go elsewhere because of his beliefs.

IMO your beliefs are only relevant on a bulletin board like this and are held in check when you go to work and support the war by showing up for work every day.

Mr. Kotter
02-29-2008, 12:03 AM
I think a better question would be patriotism and jingoism.

Nationalism could be considered synonymous with either patriotism or jingoism, but those two terms draw sharper contrasts with one another.

Honestly, probably 90% of 'patriotism' is jingoism

Freedom Fries=Jingoism
Supporting the diversity of your culture and the quirks of your country=Patriotism

OTOH, 90% of "isolationist pacifism" is nothing more than mere appeasement.

And Churchill was right: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war...."...regardless of the temporary reprieve that appeasement, presently, would afford you.

a1na2
02-29-2008, 12:04 AM
Hell are you a freaking imbecile, he said he would defend his country but not be used as a pawn of the US effort to empire build. Frankly I would expect no less and no more of my son.

When you don't have a good response you revert to calling names. I expect better of you. After all, you rode my ass for doing just that a few months ago. Hello Pot!

I would hope that your son would make his own decision without your input, but I'm sure your liberal outlook has undoubtedly colored his outlook on life as well as the country.

Logical
02-29-2008, 12:05 AM
With your feelings about the military and the war I'm surprised that you admit to work in the defense industry. An honorable man would quit that position and go elsewhere because of his beliefs.

IMO your beliefs are only relevant on a bulletin board like this and are held in check when you go to work and support the war by showing up for work every day.
You might be suprised to find that many people who work in the Military Industrial Complex feel the way I do about Iraq. Not really isolated at all, we feel our equipment is meant to defend this nation, not empire build.

Logical
02-29-2008, 12:06 AM
When you don't have a good response you revert to calling names. I expect better of you. After all, you rode my ass for doing just that a few months ago. Hello Pot!

I would hope that your son would make his own decision without your input, but I'm sure your liberal outlook has undoubtedly colored his outlook on life as well as the country.
I did not call you a name, I asked if you were a freaking imbecile, because you clearly did not understand his post.

a1na2
02-29-2008, 12:06 AM
Apparently YOU forgot it, because Osama has been hanging out in Pakistan releasing greatest hits albums for the last 7 years with little worries, apparently.

YOU seem to have forgotten we have a substantial military force in Afghanistan. You have also forgotten that we have teams searching for OBL and have since 9/11. Your arguments are getting weaker by the day.

BTW, if you are so concerned with OBL you need to join up and go show them how to do it. I'm sure your fat ass is more adept at searching through the countryside for someone that doesn't' want to be found.

a1na2
02-29-2008, 12:08 AM
I did not call you a name, I asked if you were a freaking imbecile, because you clearly did not understand his post.

I understood his post, it's very clear. He is a coward.

You claim that you asked a question, but again your intent to insult was present.

I still expect better of you, but you continually fail in that respect.

Taco John
02-29-2008, 12:13 AM
OK everyone, we have it from his own mouth. Taco John is a coward. He would not defend his country if called to duty.

Your comments above only emphasize the fact that you don't have a clue as to what it takes to defend our country. You have no clue as to what the threats to the U.S. even are and that is truly shameful.

The militia that you would join would be the one that pledges to overthrow the U.S. Government. You aren't fooling anyone.



It doesn't move me at all to see you twist my words to mean what you want them to mean. I don't expect any better of you. In fact, I expect you to be as low-ball and low-brow as you possibly can be.

Logical
02-29-2008, 12:14 AM
YOU seem to have forgotten we have a substantial military force in Afghanistan. You have also forgotten that we have teams searching for OBL and have since 9/11. Your arguments are getting weaker by the day.

BTW, if you are so concerned with OBL you need to join up and go show them how to do it. I'm sure your fat ass is more adept at searching through the countryside for someone that doesn't' want to be found.
In all honesty I am convinced the Bush administration does not want to find him. He is on dialysis and I know what that means, if our military cannot find a man that needs dialysis, we are in a bad way.

irishjayhawk
02-29-2008, 12:17 AM
I suppose the promise after 9/11 that if you harbored terrorists that we were coming is something you forgot. Iraq had Al Queda training camps that were not only allowed but supported by Saddam.

That's OK, though. You are entitled to your opinion. You are not; however, entitled to attempt to rewrite history.

I class you with those that would revise history to read the way you would have it to be rather than a true record of events.

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and numerous other countries "harbored terrorists".

IJH, This is jingoism.

Sorry, Hamas, it may be late and thus the reason, but I don't get the definition of it. Nor, admittedly, have I ever heard it.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-29-2008, 12:20 AM
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and numerous other countries "harbored terrorists".



Sorry, Hamas, it may be late and thus the reason, but I don't get the definition of it. Nor, admittedly, have I ever heard it.

Basically, literalize banyon's map, and you have your answer. Or you can always try dictionary.com or wiki ;)

Logical
02-29-2008, 12:21 AM
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and numerous other countries "harbored terrorists".



Sorry, Hamas, it may be late and thus the reason, but I don't get the definition of it. Nor, admittedly, have I ever heard it.
I am pretty sure he intended that for a1na2 but typed you in error. It means extreme nationalism with a beligerent foreign policy.

irishjayhawk
02-29-2008, 12:27 AM
Basically, literalize banyon's map, and you have your answer. Or you can always try dictionary.com or wiki ;)

I am pretty sure he intended that for a1na2 but typed you in error. It means extreme nationalism with a beligerent foreign policy.

Thanks. It clicked.


And man, I never would have thought about dictionary or wiki. :doh!::)

a1na2
02-29-2008, 12:34 AM
In all honesty I am convinced the Bush administration does not want to find him. He is on dialysis and I know what that means, if our military cannot find a man that needs dialysis, we are in a bad way.

That is purely speculation that is convenient for your political stance. You need to talk to those that are actually involved with the search. I'm sure that you wouldn't believe anyone that came back that had been involved in the search as it goes against your desires as described above.

As far as the dialysis, have you ever considered his substantial assets that he has at his disposal? I'm sure that he has what he needs and/or can get to it in a moments notice.

If you wanted to hide from being captured and were aware that you were being sought you just might be able to avoid capture, especially if you have the funds as OBL does.

a1na2
02-29-2008, 12:36 AM
It doesn't move me at all to see you twist my words to mean what you want them to mean. I don't expect any better of you. In fact, I expect you to be as low-ball and low-brow as you possibly can be.

You can't defend what you said by trying to insult me. You were very clear about your belief and you are the coward I said you were. You want to live free but are unwilling to stand for that freedom.

a1na2
02-29-2008, 12:41 AM
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and numerous other countries "harbored terrorists".

What was the outrage not long ago when the idiot in Iran said that he wanted to eradicate he Jews? With the partisan congress nothing more can be done. The people that would have to approve a move to any other country will not back that move.

The President was given the authority to go into Iraq by an overwhelming count. That would never happen again for this president.

I find it difficult to understand that people like you and TJ can sit on your arses and decry the fact that we are involved in a war, not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in the U.S. We have not lost any additional lives but the Jihad that was called down by Al Queda has not been rescinded and they are still planning attacks. A while back when I had access to briefings one of the known agenda's of Al Queda was to take out 1,000,000 Americans in one attack. Do you think that has been shelved? think again.

Taco John
02-29-2008, 12:49 AM
You can't defend what you said by trying to insult me.

I don't feel any need to defend what I said. I don't believe in the draft. I believe forced servitude is slavery. I'm not going to allow myself to be enslaved without doing everything I can to avoid it. I don't feel that there is any need to defend this position. It pretty much defends itself.


You want to live free but are unwilling to stand for that freedom.

I certainly never said that. In fact, that's exactly what I am doing with my position: standing for my freedom.

a1na2
02-29-2008, 01:02 AM
I don't feel any need to defend what I said. I don't believe in the draft. I believe forced servitude is slavery. I'm not going to allow myself to be enslaved without doing everything I can to avoid it. I don't feel that there is any need to defend this position. It pretty much defends itself.

I certainly never said that. In fact, that's exactly what I am doing with my position: standing for my freedom.

There is no defense for refusing to serve your country if called. If you believe that forced servitude is slavery then you are a slave. You are forced to work to support your family, same thing.

You are not willing to defend your freedom, nothing you can say will ever make that quote go away. You will live free on the blood of others. If you weren't moved by what I've said you wouldn't have replied. It bugs you to know that your secret is out.

Logical
02-29-2008, 01:05 AM
That is purely speculation that is convenient for your political stance. You need to talk to those that are actually involved with the search. I'm sure that you wouldn't believe anyone that came back that had been involved in the search as it goes against your desires as described above.

As far as the dialysis, have you ever considered his substantial assets that he has at his disposal? I'm sure that he has what he needs and/or can get to it in a moments notice.

If you wanted to hide from being captured and were aware that you were being sought you just might be able to avoid capture, especially if you have the funds as OBL does.

You are so lacking in knowledge on the subject you are speculating in a way that makes no sense. Dialysis requires a sterile environment (something not likely to be found in damp drafty caves. Some times money will not make up for the difficulties that an individual faces.

Taco John
02-29-2008, 01:09 AM
There is no defense for refusing to serve your country if called. If you believe that forced servitude is slavery then you are a slave. You are forced to work to support your family, same thing.

You're wrong. I'm not forced to work to support my family. I choose to do so. If I wanted to, I could choose not to, and watch them live in squalor. I don't want to do that though, and thus I push myself to achieve. It's a conscious choice.



You are not willing to defend your freedom, nothing you can say will ever make that quote go away.

Again, you're wrong. I am absolutely willing to defend my freedom. That's why I'm not willing to give up my freedom to the Federal Government to squander my life in whatever way they think necessary. I would absolutely not be willing to go to Iraq or Afghanistan. I don't believe either of those wars are necessary at this time, or worth the American blood being shed there. I don't care to deliver democracy to people who hate us. They'll just use their new found democracy to vote against our interests anyway.



You will live free on the blood of others. If you weren't moved by what I've said you wouldn't have replied. It bugs you to know that your secret is out.

Secret? What secret? This idea that I'm embarrassed to be willing to stand up for my freedom against the Federal Government is amusing in the same way that playing with my cat is amusing. I'm willing to play for awhile, but I'll eventually get bored with your simple mind and go back to ignoring you. There are way too many smart people on this board to waste too much time on you.

I'm not embarassed that I would resist a draft. I'm fundamentally opposed to such things. If a cause is worthy, people will enlist on their own. The Constitution provides no option for forcing men into involuntary servitude.

a1na2
02-29-2008, 01:19 AM
Yada yada yada.



You continue to attempt to squirm out of your comments. Being in the military to fight for your freedom is totally different from opposing the government. You are woefully confused.

You spend plenty of time trying to defend what you said. I think you need to give up because every time you post something it just digs the hole deeper.

I was willing to accept being drafted because it was my patriotic duty to serve. Now the military is all volunteer. I would go back in a minute to defend your right to be free and to be a complete coward. Your unwillingness to stand by my side, or any other Americans side to defend freedom is cowardice. It makes no difference if you don't agree with the current administration. In all actuality historically you face more of a chance of being drafted by your liberal buddies once they get into office. Until we were attacked in the U.S. a republican president has never waged war against any nation, that the democrats schtic.

Your concept of defending your freedom is terribly warped. You are thinking about yourself and yourself only, you care nothing about your fellow countrymen. As long as TJ is free that's all that matters and that is just wrong.

As for your statement that you don't have to work, you could let your family live in squalor. You know that to be bullshit and so does everyone that reads what you wrote. You are a slave to your family just like virtually everyone that has a conscience. You just refuse to work to keep your neighbor free.

Jenson71
02-29-2008, 01:35 AM
Until we were attacked in the U.S. a republican president has never waged war against any nation, that the democrats schtic.


Poor Spanish-American war never gets any remembrace.

a1na2
02-29-2008, 01:38 AM
Poor Spanish-American war never gets any remembrace.

Maybe I should have said in the past 100 years.

Jenson71
02-29-2008, 01:38 AM
There is no defense for refusing to serve your country if called.

There are some religious groups that are pacifist. Quakers, the Amish, and a number of other Christian groups.

Taco John
02-29-2008, 01:41 AM
You continue to attempt to squirm out of your comments.


No I don't. I fully embrace my position. I am not the least bit ashamed of it. I would not accept being drafted. I am a free man, and will not be forced into involuntary servitude against my will as a matter of principle if I can at all help it. I will not be bound by your ideas of what is or isn't cowardly. I choose to accept my own ideas, and can accept that someone like you finds them to be distasteful. I couldn't care less what you think about them.


Being in the military to fight for your freedom is totally different from opposing the government. You are woefully confused.

Being in the military to fight for freedom is totally different from being in the military to fight for multinational interests, expanding the empire, and controlling oil. If I thought that we were fighting for freedom, I might hold your position. Unfortunately, I think you're woefully confused. I find little redeeming about what we have done in Iraq over the last 40 years.


I was willing to accept being drafted because it was my patriotic duty to serve. Now the military is all volunteer. I would go back in a minute to defend your right to be free and to be a complete coward.

Let's not pretend that fighting in Iraq is equivalent to fighting for my freedom.


Your unwillingness to stand by my side, or any other Americans side to defend freedom is cowardice.

Again, I'm more than willing to fight for my freedom. I think I've stated that very clearly. I'm comfortable that people that I respect here understand my position on that, and am not concerned with however you choose to spin it. I will fight to protect my family and my countrymen. I will not fight to protect the interests of multinational corporations or to secure oil commodities that belong to other nations.



Your concept of defending your freedom is terribly warped. You are thinking about yourself and yourself only, you care nothing about your fellow countrymen.

You're not too far off. I care about myself and my family first, to be sure. Just like everyone else. Anyone who believes that they care about someone else first, before they care about themselves, are either lying to me or lying to themselves. Probably both.

I do care about my fellow countrymen... But not enough to give up my freedom to ensure that Exxon is making record profits from them.


As for your statement that you don't have to work, you could let your family live in squalor. You know that to be bullshit and so does everyone that reads what you wrote. You are a slave to your family just like virtually everyone that has a conscience. You just refuse to work to keep your neighbor free.

If this is how you believe, I feel truly sorry for your family. It must be sad to believe that you're a slave to your family. I'd imagine that would come with a heavy heart.

You'll be in my prayers tonight.

Good night.

a1na2
02-29-2008, 01:42 AM
There are some religious groups that are pacifist. Quakers, the Amish, and a number of other Christian groups.

I have a cousin that was a conscientious objector. He did two tours in Vietnam, he was not forced to carry a weapon and did his 2 years. I can accept those that feel they cannot kill, I respect them due to the ridicule that they received because of their beliefs.

Objecting because you don't agree with the war or that being drafted makes you a slave is ludicrous at best.

Jenson71
02-29-2008, 01:47 AM
I have a cousin that was a conscientious objector. He did two tours in Vietnam, he was not forced to carry a weapon and did his 2 years. I can accept those that feel they cannot kill, I respect them due to the ridicule that they received because of their beliefs.

Objecting because you don't agree with the war or that being drafted makes you a slave is ludicrous at best.

But don't you feel that sometimes not going along with your country is a good thing? If you think your country is headed in the wrong direction, why would you then act alongside it? Aren't there times when a little civil disobedience is good?

a1na2
02-29-2008, 01:49 AM
more of the yada yada yada

I'll take your prayers, but I don't have it in my heart to reciprocate. I abhor your stance on the issue of defending the freedoms of the same Americans that are willing to die to defend yours.

I would gladly be a slave to my family, that's because I love them more than you could ever imagine. I would sacrifice my life for not only my immediate family but my extended family. For 28 years I was putting my life on the line for you as well and I honestly don't like you.

If you aren't willing to give all to your family as a servant then you don't deserve to have a family.

Don't ever try to say that you feel sorry for my family, they have been blessed beyond measure as I have been. Too bad you can't understand what love for your family is all about.

a1na2
02-29-2008, 01:58 AM
But don't you feel that sometimes not going along with your country is a good thing? If you think your country is headed in the wrong direction, why would you then act alongside it? Aren't there times when a little civil disobedience is good?

This is my country, it has provided me, and countless others, with a place to live that is better than anywhere in the world I have been. In my short lifetime and I've been around the world two times and visited many countries. You don't have to agree with everything that goes on, but you do have to support your country. The Bible tells us that we have to love our neighbor as ourselves, it does not say that we have to like them. That is a conceptual difference that I have with many regarding that passage. I don't expect everyone believe that way or even understand what it means. I can forgive and forget, but I don't have to expose myself to the same issues over and over.

I was never obligated to carry out any order that was unlawful. I do not believe in civil disobedience to make a point. There are other more effective ways to illicit change.

I come from an age when you supported your country right or wrong. At this point in time there are things that I see as being wrong, but I'm not going to go out and break the law to make my point. I will address my concerns via letters to my representatives as well as phone calls and personal visits when they are available.

If there were a draft I would expect any American called to respond to the call. After 9/11 there were veterans from all over the country pouring into recruiting stations asking to be re-enlisted. Some of them far over the age allowed. I was recalled to active duty at age 50. If called now I would not hesitate to answer the call.

Taco John
02-29-2008, 01:58 AM
I'll take your prayers...

You have no choice but to... They've already been sent. I prayed for wisdom for both of us.

I don't care whether you like me or not. I don't care whether you agree with my way of fighting for me and my fellow countrymen's freedom or not. I answer to two authorities in my life (My God and my self), and neither you, nor the Imperial US Government count - though I will pay my taxes in order to keep myself out of their greedy crosshairs until the day that enough Americans wake up and we become liberated from their oppressive tax system.

And finally, this time for real... Adieu. Time for bed.

Jenson71
02-29-2008, 02:06 AM
I come from an age when you supported your country right or wrong. At this point in time there are things that I see as being wrong, but I'm not going to go out and break the law to make my point. I will address my concerns via letters to my representatives as well as phone calls and personal visits when they are available.

I don't know of this age. There have always been those in our country who fought the law of the country. They may have supported the underlining ideals and values in our constitution, but that doesn't mean they weren't going to fight like hell for what they perceived to be unjust laws from the country. Think of the abolitionists and those who fought for greater rights for women and blacks throughout the years. Sometimes our country is wrong and it's okay to not support it but stand up for what's right. It doesn't mean you don't love America. It means you love America so much you don't want to see it be degraded, or want to see it live up to her highest ideals.

We have a good system of checks and balances, and a great judicial branch, one that I think we can be especially proud of, but the people have to be good democratic citizens as well. Part of that is sometimes saying "this is not right, damnit!" And then going off like my avatar.

a1na2
02-29-2008, 02:07 AM
You have no choice but to... They've already been sent. I prayed for wisdom for both of us.

I don't care whether you like me or not. I don't care whether you agree with my way of fighting for me and my fellow countrymen's freedom or not. I answer to two authorities in my life (My God and my self), and neither you, nor the Imperial US Government count - though I will pay my taxes in order to keep myself out of their greedy crosshairs until the day that enough Americans wake up and we become liberated from their oppressive tax system.

And finally, this time for real... Adieu. Time for bed.

It sounds like you are advocating overthrowing the government. Even though I don't care for you or your outlook on the country you shouldn't be so vocal in saying that. You never know who is reading this and finding you would not be a difficult thing. You could be opening up a can of worms that you are not equipped to handle.

a1na2
02-29-2008, 02:10 AM
I don't know of this age. There have always been those in our country who fought the law of the country. They may have supported the underlining ideals and values in our constitution, but that doesn't mean they weren't going to fight like hell for what they perceived to be unjust laws from the country. Think of the abolitionists and those who fought for greater rights for women and blacks throughout the years. Sometimes our country is wrong and it's okay to not support it but stand up for what's right. It doesn't mean you don't love America. It means you love America so much you don't want to see it be degraded, or want to see it live up to her highest ideals.

We have a good system of checks and balances, and a great judicial branch, one that I think we can be especially proud of, but the people have to be good democratic citizens as well. Part of that is sometimes saying "this is not right, damnit!" And then going off like my avatar.

Reading between the lines it seems like some are advocating the overthrow of the government. Regardless of how you feel that is not a good thing. I still have a problem with those that refuse to serve due to that disagreement.

MadMax
02-29-2008, 02:12 AM
You're wrong. I'm not forced to work to support my family. I choose to do so. If I wanted to, I could choose not to, and watch them live in squalor. I don't want to do that though, and thus I push myself to achieve. It's a conscious choice.





Again, you're wrong. I am absolutely willing to defend my freedom. That's why I'm not willing to give up my freedom to the Federal Government to squander my life in whatever way they think necessary. I would absolutely not be willing to go to Iraq or Afghanistan. I don't believe either of those wars are necessary at this time, or worth the American blood being shed there. I don't care to deliver democracy to people who hate us. They'll just use their new found democracy to vote against our interests anyway.





Secret? What secret? This idea that I'm embarrassed to be willing to stand up for my freedom against the Federal Government is amusing in the same way that playing with my cat is amusing. I'm willing to play for awhile, but I'll eventually get bored with your simple mind and go back to ignoring you. There are way too many smart people on this board to waste too much time on you.

I'm not embarassed that I would resist a draft. I'm fundamentally opposed to such things. If a cause is worthy, people will enlist on their own. The Constitution provides no option for forcing men into involuntary servitude.



Seriously, you should move... You are like a ****in retarded Einstein with an agenda. It is a damn shame THIS country has provided you with a platform to spew your selfish assed hatred of anything you disagree with. You are a piece of work dude..err a pice of shit is more apt.

WoodDraw
02-29-2008, 02:15 AM
Reading between the lines it seems like some are advocating the overthrow of the government. Regardless of how you feel that is not a good thing. I still have a problem with those that refuse to serve due to that disagreement.

Our founders overthrew an oppressive government, and granted the citizens here the right to do that every few years. Don't mistake descent for sedition. Thankfully they didn't accept your view on national loyalty.

ClevelandBronco
02-29-2008, 03:12 AM
The way I read it, Taco and a1na2 both have a great deal of respect for the lives and the call to duty of our professional soldiers as well as citizens who would act as soldiers under the kinds of circumstances that would require such action.

While the two of you may disagree with respect to the specifics of the necessity to serve given this scenario or that one, you both fundamentally agree on the single key issue: There is a time and a circumstance that may cause either of you to take a life or give up your own while bearing arms in support of the United States.

Cowardice in this circumstance or bravery in the other one isn't the issue. The degree of threat seems to be the only question between you.

On the other hand, I enjoy reading arguments here. If you guys feel the need to keep it going I'm game for following along.

Bill S Preston
02-29-2008, 04:11 AM
Hahaha

CHIEF4EVER
02-29-2008, 05:49 AM
It sounds like you are advocating overthrowing the government. Even though I don't care for you or your outlook on the country you shouldn't be so vocal in saying that. You never know who is reading this and finding you would not be a difficult thing. You could be opening up a can of worms that you are not equipped to handle.

WOW. JUST WOW. :shake:

Are you an American? If so I recommend taking a Civics refresher course at the first available opportunity. We have not only the RIGHT but also the RESPONSIBILITY to question our leaders if we don't agree with them. We also have the RIGHT to voice criticism and petition for redress of grievances. He would be wrong NOT to be vocal. If you don't have time for a refresher course then may I suggest reading the Federalist Papers at the very least. It will give you some insight as to the midset of some of the Founders who wrote the Constitution.

A quick question and I would be VERY interested in your take on it:

Why was the 2d Amendment included in the Constitution?

a1na2
02-29-2008, 06:10 AM
WOW. JUST WOW. :shake:

Are you an American? If so I recommend taking a Civics refresher course at the first available opportunity. We have not only the RIGHT but also the RESPONSIBILITY to question our leaders if we don't agree with them. We also have the RIGHT to voice criticism and petition for redress of grievances. He would be wrong NOT to be vocal. If you don't have time for a refresher course then may I suggest reading the Federalist Papers at the very least. It will give you some insight as to the midset of some of the Founders who wrote the Constitution.

A quick question and I would be VERY interested in your take on it:

Why was the 2d Amendment included in the Constitution?

Nobody is questioning his right to question the leadership, he is very nearly indicating that he would stand in line to overthrow the government.

As for the second amendment, the militia they are talking about is now the U.S. military. Our government has seen fit to form all of the different services and in the times of need to institute a draft to provide for the protection of the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitutions's Bill of Rights declares a well-regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State" and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." The meaning of the Second Amendment is one of the most misunderstood and disputed among the entire Bill of Rights.

Your interpretation of that amendment seems to include separate groups of independent militias that are willing to fight against the Government that already has a "well-regulated" military. My interpretation of the amendment is just as it says above, it does not include a provision that all Americans can take up arms against the government.

I think it is you that needs a refresher course. Being vocal is one thing, but he seems to be willing to take up arms against the government because of his disagreement with the way the country is governed. Re-read what he wrote.

MurphDog
02-29-2008, 06:34 AM
My interpretation of the amendment is just as it says above, it does not include a provision that all Americans can take up arms against the government.

Lets think about this... The founding fathers didnt want the citizens to have the ability to repeat what we did to England ROFL Give me a break... Its all about the "peoples" right to bear arms - meaning everday citizens have the right, not just militias

CHIEF4EVER
02-29-2008, 06:59 AM
Nobody is questioning his right to question the leadership, he is very nearly indicating that he would stand in line to overthrow the government.

Really? How did you extrapolate that from his original comment? Methinks you are inferring that on your own.

As for the second amendment, the militia they are talking about is now the U.S. military. Our government has seen fit to form all of the different services and in the times of need to institute a draft to provide for the protection of the country.

Not that it is relevant but you are wrong again sir. The second Amendment isn't contingent upon the need for a militia. The operating clause (and legally binding one for that matter) is "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Your interpretation of that amendment seems to include separate groups of independent militias that are willing to fight against the Government that already has a "well-regulated" military.

HTF would you know WHAT my interpretation is from my original post? I said no such thing. In a1na2's world of fantasy that may be the case but not in my original post. BTW, well regulated military is not = well regulated militia. BIG difference and only one of the two words are even mentioned in the Amendment (hint: military isn't mentioned).

BTW........



mi·li·tia<SCRIPT>play_w("M0295000")</SCRIPT><OBJECT style="MARGIN: 3px 3px 5px" codeBase=http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,0,0 height=13 width=10 classid=clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000>























</p>&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&ampnbsp</p>&ampnbsp
&ampnbsp
&ampnbsp
&ampnbsp
&ampnbsp
&ampnbsp
&ampnbsp
&ampnbsp
&ampnbsp
&ampnbsp
&ampnbsp
&ampnbsp
&ampnbsp
&ampnbsp
&ampnbsp
&ampnbsp
&ampnbsp
&ampnbsp
&ampnbsp
&ampnbsp
&ampnbsp
&ampnbsp
<embed style="margin-bottom:4px" src="http://img.tfd.com/play.swf" FlashVars="soundpath=http://img.tfd.com/hm/mp3/M0295000" menu="false" width="10" height="13" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></OBJECT>(mhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-lhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifshhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif)
n. 1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.


My interpretation of the amendment is just as it says above, it does not include a provision that all Americans can take up arms against the government.

"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

-James Madison.





</PRE>"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."
-Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).

As you can see, the Founders disagreed with you a bit. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume they were right and you are....well....WRONG.

Being vocal is one thing, but he seems to be willing to take up arms against the government because of his disagreement with the way the country is governed. Re-read what he wrote.

NOT. He never said any such thing.

The reason for my question was simple and you gave me the answer I thought you would. The Founders originally included the 2d Amendment to PROTECT THE PEOPLE from their own government in the event it became too oppressive. It was meant as a deterrent.

a1na2
02-29-2008, 07:03 AM
Lets think about this... The founder fathers didnt want the citizens to have the ability to repeat what we did to England Give me a break... Its all about the "peoples" right to bear arms - meaning everday citizens have the right, not just militias

Give you a break? You can't find the words so you feel the need to inject a little smiley face ROFL to try to emphasize what you wrote? You should have used :spock:, it would have been more fitting.

The militias they are talking about is the U.S. Military, not splinter groups that are taking up arms against the Government. It is against the law to form groups that have the express intent on overthrowing the government.

We have the right to bear arms, we do not have the right to bear arms against our government.

a1na2
02-29-2008, 07:06 AM
Really? How did you extrapolate that from his original comment? Methinks you are inferring that on your own.

He never said any such thing.

The reason for my question was simple and you gave me the answer I thought you would. The Founders originally included the 2d Amendment to PROTECT THE PEOPLE from their own government in the event it became too oppressive. It was meant as a deterrent.

I suggest that you re read what he wrote, on more than one occasion.

I think you are missing much with that last comment, Show me where any court had interpreted the constitution in the manner in which you have convoluted it.

Baby Lee
02-29-2008, 07:32 AM
Too depressing, starvation and aids, America just ignores Africa.
That's downright rexjakian in it's ignorance.
Even his biggest detractors on other grounds will cede that the Bush admin has been admirable, perhaps the best admin yet, on aid to Africa.

patteeu
02-29-2008, 07:55 AM
That philosophy is very real and very present. It's really present on the message board. As is ethnocentrism and a lack of empathy.

You left out "self-loathing".

patteeu
02-29-2008, 08:06 AM
You would really like my master's thesis. Seriously.

If he gets his hands on it, he might just crank out a master's thesis of his "own". :p (j/k Taco)

MurphDog
02-29-2008, 08:26 AM
Give you a break? You can't find the words so you feel the need to inject a little smiley face ROFL to try to emphasize what you wrote? You should have used :spock:, it would have been more fitting.

The militias they are talking about is the U.S. Military, not splinter groups that are taking up arms against the Government. It is against the law to form groups that have the express intent on overthrowing the government.

We have the right to bear arms, we do not have the right to bear arms against our government.

I can use a ROFL or :spock: or :doh!: or a WTF or anything else - its comical to hear people talk about the second amendment - its scary to think what people are actually doing to the second amendment. So I just want to get this straight - you seriously in your heart of hearts believe that our founding fathers wanted to handicap the citizens of this country and not protect their rights against a tyrannical government. Am I correct in your belief?

Iowanian
02-29-2008, 08:48 AM
I am definitely not above knowing that sometimes our country does the wrong thing.


I am no however going to be in your Blame America First club.

War is a shitty thing and if you do it right, shitty things happen. If the United States didn't hold back, and spend so much time, money and caution avoiding civilian deaths, collateral damage and trying not to insult local cultures during WAR....we'd probably have been one with Iraq 3 years ago.

Show me another single nation, in the history of war who has shown as much restraint with so much military capability.

Taco John
02-29-2008, 10:16 AM
I am definitely not above knowing that sometimes our country does the wrong thing.


I am no however going to be in your Blame America First club.

War is a shitty thing and if you do it right, shitty things happen. If the United States didn't hold back, and spend so much time, money and caution avoiding civilian deaths, collateral damage and trying not to insult local cultures during WAR....we'd probably have been one with Iraq 3 years ago.

Show me another single nation, in the history of war who has shown as much restraint with so much military capability.

I don't care what order you blame America in, so long as you're willing to do it when it deserves it. But let's be honest: You're in the "America can do no wrong" club when it comes to American militarism.

Well, I'm not going to apologize. The Federal government takes the equivalent of my paycheck from January through May. I'm going to do everything I can to hold them responsible for how they are operating, without any personal remorse for it. They're supposed to be working for me. Calling people "blame America firsters" might make some people shy away from their criticisms -- but don't count me as one of them. I know that I'm just as good an American as anyone on this forum, even if I believe that the federal government has abused their authority.

Iowanian
02-29-2008, 11:37 AM
You don't even do that for the cheating football team you support. I'd think your nation would get at least as much room.


I'm going to continue to support the home team, even if I don't like current management.

Taco John
02-29-2008, 11:45 AM
You don't even do that for the cheating football team you support.

Huh? Football team? You've lost me. When did the Broncos use chemical weapons on innocent women and children?


I'd think your nation would get at least as much room.

You would definitely be wrong there. I hold my nation to the high standard that our founders established for it. It matters little to me that people such as yourself dont.



I'm going to continue to support the home team, even if I don't like current management.

You show a pretty rudimentary outlook. No, I'm not going to support the "home team" if they should choose to use chemical weapons to kill indescrminately in my name. No, I'm not going to support the home team that put an investigation of US weapons grade anthrax being sent to senators on the back burner. No I'm not going to support the home team that has ignored the Constitution in order to do whatever they want, whenever they can manufacture enough consent to proceed.

In fact, I love America and what she is supposed to be to speak out against it.

Iowanian
02-29-2008, 12:05 PM
I'm sure the Ricin found in Las Vegas this weekend was only going to be used to target legitimate miliary targets, only after all civilians have been cleared.

vailpass
02-29-2008, 12:10 PM
Nice collection of whiners, draft dodgers, and all around America bashers in this forum.
Don't worry, there are people out there doing the hard work so you don't have to.

Taco John
02-29-2008, 12:15 PM
Nice collection of whiners, draft dodgers, and all around America bashers in this forum.
Don't worry, there are people out there doing the hard work so you don't have to.

Indeed.


http://www.product-reviews.net/wp-content/userimages/2007/08/ron_paul-1.jpg


Working hard...

vailpass
02-29-2008, 12:17 PM
Indeed.



Working hard...

Is that the guy who died a couple of weeks ago?

Logical
02-29-2008, 12:42 PM
That's downright rexjakian in it's ignorance.
Even his biggest detractors on other grounds will cede that the Bush admin has been admirable, perhaps the best admin yet, on aid to Africa.


Dude the map was missing Africa, this was a joke about why it was missing. Don't get your panties in a bunch.

MurphDog
02-29-2008, 12:54 PM
I am definitely not above knowing that sometimes our country does the wrong thing.


I am no however going to be in your Blame America First club.

War is a shitty thing and if you do it right, shitty things happen. If the United States didn't hold back, and spend so much time, money and caution avoiding civilian deaths, collateral damage and trying not to insult local cultures during WAR....we'd probably have been one with Iraq 3 years ago.

Show me another single nation, in the history of war who has shown as much restraint with so much military capability.

Whats become popular with some groups is to bash the country, isnt that a bit odd - but much glee comes from it. I think we have found a few members

Taco John
02-29-2008, 01:37 PM
Holding the government that takes nearly six months of my pay accountable is not "bashing the country."

vailpass
02-29-2008, 01:48 PM
Holding the government that takes nearly six months of my pay accountable is not "bashing the country."

How does the govt. keep half of your pay?

MurphDog
02-29-2008, 02:00 PM
Holding the government that takes nearly six months of my pay accountable is not "bashing the country."

Never said it was - maybe its some of your other comments - maybe it was some one else's comments

But I would also like to know how the feds have 50% of your pay?

irishjayhawk
02-29-2008, 02:03 PM
Nice collection of whiners, draft dodgers, and all around America bashers in this forum.
Don't worry, there are people out there doing the hard work so you don't have to.

I was unaware that you had to do hard work to hold opinions.

Baby Lee
02-29-2008, 02:15 PM
Dude the map was missing Africa, this was a joke about why it was missing. Don't get your panties in a bunch.
The map is missing Africa for the reason you joked about.

And not to 'keep my panties in a bunch,' but jokes that reinforce demonstrably untrue denigrations tend to touch sensitivies.

Like if I joked that Obama was a dope slinger, because, you know, he's black, there might be a response to that kind of humor.

Incidently - http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1717934,00.html

MurphDog
02-29-2008, 02:23 PM
Incidentally, Obama is a black man that used cocaine

Jenson71
02-29-2008, 02:40 PM
Incidently - http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1717934,00.html

That was an excellent article.

Micjones
02-29-2008, 02:52 PM
Nice to know that calling this less than stellar administration into question isn't one of our protected freedoms.

Taco John
02-29-2008, 02:55 PM
But I would also like to know how the feds have 50% of your pay?


http://www.atr.org/national/cogd/index.html

MurphDog
02-29-2008, 02:57 PM
Oh... ok.... :)

vailpass
02-29-2008, 03:08 PM
I was unaware that you had to do hard work to hold opinions.

It was never my intention to say that anyone's free speech should be limited in any way, shape, or form.
Forgive me if I gave you that impression.

Baby Lee
02-29-2008, 03:08 PM
Nice to know that calling this less than stellar administration into question isn't one of our protected freedoms.
No one told me anyone went to jail over what they said in this thread. That changes everything.

vailpass
02-29-2008, 03:09 PM
http://www.atr.org/national/cogd/index.html

Oh Jesus Christ. I don't know who weirds me out more: Paulites or Obamanians.

vailpass
02-29-2008, 03:11 PM
Nice to know that calling this less than stellar administration into question isn't one of our protected freedoms.

Of course it is Mic, my disagreeing with someone else's opinion isn't the same as supressing their speech.

MurphDog
02-29-2008, 03:14 PM
Oh Jesus Christ. I don't know who weirds me out more: Paulites or Obamanians.

I thought the same thing, it only took two seconds to see the writing on the wall.

For the life of me I couldnt begin to think up some of this BS

Iowanian
02-29-2008, 03:41 PM
I don't care what order you blame America in, so long as you're willing to do it when it deserves it. But let's be honest: You're in the "America can do no wrong" club when it comes to American militarism.
.

You're right.

Lets be honest.

You think your own govt killed 3000 Americans on 9-11-2001.

Micjones
02-29-2008, 03:53 PM
Of course it is Mic, my disagreeing with someone else's opinion isn't the same as supressing their speech.

No it isn't. But labeling someone a draft dodger because they disagree with prosecuting an unjust war is flat silly...

vailpass
02-29-2008, 04:08 PM
No it isn't. But labeling someone a draft dodger because they disagree with prosecuting an unjust war is flat silly...

If you state that if drafted you would not report are you not saying you would dodge the draft?

irishjayhawk
02-29-2008, 04:24 PM
If you state that if drafted you would not report are you not saying you would dodge the draft?

For me, it depends. Although, I have a medical out. If someone was attacking us on our soil, I'd go hands down. However, a draft for a Korean, Iranian or another Iraqi incursion or war, count me out. I'd rather go to Canada.

Essentially, it matters if I can trust the motives behind the war. With the current administration, it'd be a resounding no.

a1na2
02-29-2008, 04:25 PM
That was an excellent article.

It is interesting, but I'd also like to hear the way the story on AF1 played out from some one elses pov. The guy that wrote the story was obviously not someone that likes Bush.

It may be wholly true, but then again I'm skeptical about the barbs that were bantied about.

irishjayhawk
02-29-2008, 04:25 PM
It was never my intention to say that anyone's free speech should be limited in any way, shape, or form.
Forgive me if I gave you that impression.

That's cool. But out of curiosity, what way was that supposed to be read. I don't understand your point?

Micjones
02-29-2008, 04:26 PM
If you state that if drafted you would not report are you not saying you would dodge the draft?

I would absolutely refuse to participate in the prosecution of an unjust war.

a1na2
02-29-2008, 04:26 PM
For me, it depends. Although, I have a medical out. If someone was attacking us on our soil, I'd go hands down. However, a draft for a Korean, Iranian or another Iraqi incursion or war, count me out. I'd rather go to Canada.

Essentially, it matters if I can trust the motives behind the war. With the current administration, it'd be a resounding no.

You'll have to go somewhere else, Canada will extradite draft dodgers.

It must be nice to know more than anyone else and be assured that your pov is the only one that is right.

I'd err on the side of freedom. You guys and bill clinton really make me sick.

Jenson71
02-29-2008, 04:27 PM
It is interesting, but I'd also like to hear the way the story on AF1 played out from some one elses pov. The guy that wrote the story was obviously not someone that likes Bush.

It may be wholly true, but then again I'm skeptical about the barbs that were bantied about.

Actually, it seemed he thought Bush was a pretty good guy - just had some major disagreements on certain policies.

a1na2
02-29-2008, 04:28 PM
I would absolutely refuse to participate in the prosecution of an unjust war.

so you are going to listen to the liberals and determine that it is an unjust war? Didnt' they back the Iraq invasion and then backed down? I'd say that you would be obligated before your liberal lawmakers determined that it was finally unjust in their eyes.

irishjayhawk
02-29-2008, 04:28 PM
You'll have to go somewhere else, Canada will extradite draft dodgers.

Cite?


It must be nice to know more than anyone else and be assured that your pov is the only one that is right.

I'd err on the side of freedom. You guys and bill clinton really make me sick.

I don't know what you are getting at here. I didn't say my opinion was the only one that is right. And I don't understand the "err on the side of freedom" and how it applies here.

a1na2
02-29-2008, 04:29 PM
Actually, it seemed he thought Bush was a pretty good guy - just had some major disagreements on certain policies.


No doubt, but the jist of the story seems to be more off the wall than I think most anyone would be with the POTUS.

Logical
02-29-2008, 04:43 PM
The map is missing Africa for the reason you joked about.

And not to 'keep my panties in a bunch,' but jokes that reinforce demonstrably untrue denigrations tend to touch sensitivies.

Like if I joked that Obama was a dope slinger, because, you know, he's black, there might be a response to that kind of humor.

Incidently - http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1717934,00.html

Holy cow I made that up, I had no idea that it was the real reason the map left Africa off. Pretty amazing that not knowing their intent I discerned it just because I know the way many people think.

Logical
02-29-2008, 04:48 PM
Never said it was - maybe its some of your other comments - maybe it was some one else's comments

But I would also like to know how the feds have 50% of your pay?


Cannot answer for TJ but for me it is easy, add Federal, SS, Medicare taxes and bingo you are there.

Micjones
02-29-2008, 05:00 PM
so you are going to listen to the liberals and determine that it is an unjust war? Didnt' they back the Iraq invasion and then backed down? I'd say that you would be obligated before your liberal lawmakers determined that it was finally unjust in their eyes.

No one else made that decision for me.
It's a conclusion I've come to on my own.
After many hours of research and study.
After processing the information available to every woman and man.

This war...is unjust.

Taco John
02-29-2008, 05:09 PM
You're right.

Lets be honest.

You think your own govt killed 3000 Americans on 9-11-2001.


I wouldn't say "the government" did it. But I do believe that there would have to be an inside faction involved in order to plant the explosives that were used to help bring the buildings down. I've heard both sides of the issue on whether explosives were used at all. Personally, I think there is enough evidence that there were to warrant an investigation into the matter. I'm not ashamed of the position that there should be an investigation of this aspect.

MurphDog
02-29-2008, 05:19 PM
I wouldn't say "the government" did it. But I do believe that there would have to be an inside faction involved in order to plant the explosives that were used to help bring the buildings down. I've heard both sides of the issue on whether explosives were used at all. Personally, I think there is enough evidence that there were to warrant an investigation into the matter. I'm not ashamed of the position that there should be an investigation of this aspect.


ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL Sorry its just been a while since I have run across your type ROFLROFLROFLROFL

Micjones
02-29-2008, 05:21 PM
Please don't get me started on 9/11.

If you believe the official explanation of 9/11 delivered by the 9/11 Commission you must also believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and Herm Edwards' chance at winning a Superbowl.

Taco John
02-29-2008, 05:23 PM
No need to apologize. I take little offense at the laughter.

vailpass
02-29-2008, 05:25 PM
For me, it depends. Although, I have a medical out. If someone was attacking us on our soil, I'd go hands down. However, a draft for a Korean, Iranian or another Iraqi incursion or war, count me out. I'd rather go to Canada.

Essentially, it matters if I can trust the motives behind the war. With the current administration, it'd be a resounding no.

Then you and I have a very fundamental disagreement and I would be proud to be part of the firing squad that carried out your death sentence should your court martial so dictate.

Taco John
02-29-2008, 05:25 PM
Then you and I have a very fundamental disagreement and I would be proud to be part of the firing squad that carried out your death sentence should your court martial so dictate.

You're a pretty hateful individual.

Micjones
02-29-2008, 05:30 PM
Then you and I have a very fundamental disagreement and I would be proud to be part of the firing squad that carried out your death sentence should your court martial so dictate.

Sounds like America "The Free" doesn't it?

vailpass
02-29-2008, 05:30 PM
I would absolutely refuse to participate in the prosecution of an unjust war.

Mic,
Good thing it doesn't work that way in real life. You go when you are called no matter what otherwise we can't defend ourselves.

Micjones
02-29-2008, 05:31 PM
Mic,
Good thing it doesn't work that way in real life. You go when you are called no matter what otherwise we can't defend ourselves.

There are plenty of red-blooded Americans willing to go and fight.
I'm just not one of them. Because this war is unjust and goes against everything I believe in.

The romanticized America that people love to talk about is supposed to protect that freedom and that right.

Draft dodging isn't classified as the act of refusal to participate in the prosecution of war where it conflicts with someone's religious convictions. Draft dodging involves deception and evasion.

MurphDog
02-29-2008, 05:32 PM
Man thats a hell of a post and a mouthful

Taco John
02-29-2008, 05:33 PM
Mic,
Good thing it doesn't work that way in real life. You go when you are called no matter what otherwise we can't defend ourselves.



That's nonsense. Each and every one of us in this thread would likely fight in a battle if our nation was threatened. There'd be no need to have a draft because if the war is just, people will enlist by the truckload.

But when the war is unjust, you get what we see now: dropping enlistment rates.

vailpass
02-29-2008, 05:33 PM
You're a pretty hateful individual.

I'm an individual who understand and appreciates what it takes to keep this nation free.

I'm an individual who is sickened at the thought of an able bodied American male turning tail and refusing to fight because he doesn't like the ideology.

I'm an individual who has had direct family members in every American conflict since WWI. I don't appreciate people like you living off of the freedoms paid for by my relative's blood without being willing to carry your own weight.

banyon
02-29-2008, 05:34 PM
ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL Sorry its just been a while since I have run across your type ROFLROFLROFLROFL

Here you go, enjoy!
:)

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=135416&highlight=inside+job

Baby Lee
02-29-2008, 05:36 PM
There are plenty of red-blooded Americans willing to go and fight.
I'm just not one of them. Because this war is unjust and goes against everything I believe in.

The romanticized America that people love to talk about is supposed to protect that freedom and that right.

Draft dodging isn't classified as the act of refusal to participate in the prosecution of war where it conflicts with someone's religious convictions. Draft dodging involves deception and evasion.

The romanticized America that people love to talk about protects that freedom and that right through red-blooded Americans willing to go and fight.

You're just not one of them.

Taco John
02-29-2008, 05:38 PM
I'm an individual who understand and appreciates what it takes to keep this nation free.

You don't demonstrate that you either understand nor appreciate what it takes to keep a nation free. You show that you're willing to turn our nation into a totalitarian one at the drop of a hat.


I'm an individual who is sickened at the thought of an able bodied American male turning tail and refusing to fight because he doesn't like the ideology.

Interesting. I'm an individual who is sickend at the thought of a douchebag American male killing another person because they don't goose step in line with him.



I'm an individual who has had direct family members in every American conflict since WWI. I don't appreciate people like you living off of the freedoms paid for by my relative's blood without being willing to carry your own weight.

I'm more than willing to carry my own weight. I'm just not going to go to war to secure record profits for multi-national oil corporations. I understand that you're not a very nuanced individual. That's not my problem. I'm not going to burden myself with your hate.

banyon
02-29-2008, 05:38 PM
I'm an individual who is sickened at the thought of an able bodied American male turning tail and refusing to fight because he doesn't like the ideology.


So our job as Americans is to shut up, follow orders, and not ask questions then?

vailpass
02-29-2008, 05:39 PM
There are plenty of red-blooded Americans willing to go and fight.
I'm just not one of them. Because this war is unjust and goes against everything I believe in.

The romanticized America that people love to talk about is supposed to protect that freedom and that right.

Draft dodging isn't classified as the act of refusal to participate in the prosecution of war where it conflicts with someone's religious convictions. Draft dodging involves deception and evasion.

Okay thanks that tells me all I need to know about your position.

vailpass
02-29-2008, 05:40 PM
You don't demonstrate that you either understand nor appreciate what it takes to keep a nation free. You show that you're willing to turn our nation into a totalitarian one at the drop of a hat.




Interesting. I'm an individual who is sickend at the thought of a douchebag American male killing another person because they don't goose step in line with him.





I'm more than willing to carry my own weight. I'm just not going to go to war to secure record profits for multi-national oil corporations. I understand that you're not a very nuanced individual. That's not my problem. I'm not going to burden myself with your hate.

That's a lot of typing just to say "I'm a liberal coward who will suck the benefits out of this country without being willing to protect her."

MurphDog
02-29-2008, 05:41 PM
Here you go, enjoy!
:)

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=135416&highlight=inside+job

I have some tin foil hats for some of you nuts - and yes the black helicopters are out shhhhhh...... Even a few hats for your pets...

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii31/LakeAnna/fatman.jpg

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii31/LakeAnna/army.jpg

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii31/LakeAnna/cat-hat.jpg

Taco John
02-29-2008, 05:42 PM
That's a lot of typing just to say "I'm a liberal coward who will suck the benefits out of this country without being willing to protect her."


Nonsense. I'm a conservative who is absolutely willing to fight to protect American soil. I'm just not stupid enough to give up my freedom to secure multinational oil.

MurphDog
02-29-2008, 05:43 PM
http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii31/LakeAnna/0601001StoneCold-X.gif

MurphDog
02-29-2008, 05:43 PM
Nonsense. I'm a conservative who is absolutely willing to fight to protect American soil. I'm just not stupid enough to give up my freedom to secure multinational oil.

Please dont consider yourself a conservative...

Logical
02-29-2008, 05:45 PM
That's a lot of typing just to say "I'm a liberal coward who will suck the benefits out of this country without being willing to protect her."


I really believe that you are smart enough to understand the distinction of the need American men had to serve in WWII vs the insanity of supporting big oil interests in the occupation of Iraq. Hell I will even give you a need to serve to support going after OBL in Afghanistan or Pakistan (wherever he is hiding).

vailpass
02-29-2008, 05:45 PM
So our job as Americans is to shut up, follow orders, and not ask questions then?

I would hope as Americans we realize that freedom isn't free and have the pride and honor to do our part. That during times of national crisis we would make the decision to defend our country so when it is over we all have the freedom to discuss and debate our differences.

Taco John
02-29-2008, 05:46 PM
Please dont consider yourself a conservative...



I don't have much choice. When you hold conservative view points, you pretty much fall into that category regardless of whether people want you to or not.

Taco John
02-29-2008, 05:48 PM
I would hope as Americans we realize that freedom isn't free and have the pride and honor to do our part. That during times of national crisis we would make the decision to defend our country so when it is over we all have the freedom to discuss and debate our differences.

Nobody is arguing against that.

The argument is that the Iraq war is not a "time of national crisis." Nor the Afghanistan war. The Vietnam war was not a time of national crisis either.

vailpass
02-29-2008, 05:48 PM
I really believe that you are smart enough to understand the distinction of the need American men had to serve in WWII vs the insanity of supporting big oil interests in the occupation of Iraq. Hell I will even give you a need to serve to support going after OBL in Afghanistan or Pakistan (wherever he is hiding).

And I believe you are smart enough to understand that if you make an exception to military service for one war you will have opened a gate that can never be closed.

Adept Havelock
02-29-2008, 05:48 PM
Then you and I have a very fundamental disagreement and I would be proud to be part of the firing squad that carried out your death sentence should your court martial so dictate.

How is someone not subject to military discipline (a draft-dodger) going to be court martialed? :hmmm:

IIRC, the ones that went on trial during Vietnam were tried in civil courts and imprisoned, not shot.

Logical
02-29-2008, 05:48 PM
http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii31/LakeAnna/0601001StoneCold-X.gif


Actually we can and do live with it (Oklahoma City anyone) it just needs to be suppressed (managed per your cartoo) to the greatest extent possible without giving up our liberties.

MurphDog
02-29-2008, 05:49 PM
I don't have much choice. When you hold conservative view points, you pretty much fall into that category regardless of whether people want you to or not.

You do have a choice and so far I havent seen too many that would lead me to believe that you a conservative - there are some posts even in here that would cause a loss of that membership card...

banyon
02-29-2008, 05:49 PM
I would hope as Americans we realize that freedom isn't free and have the pride and honor to do our part. That during times of national crisis we would make the decision to defend our country so when it is over we all have the freedom to discuss and debate our differences.

I guess the main difference is that most people don't view Iraq as related very importantly to our freedoms whatsoever. We're nation-building and collecting resources.

If our freedom is truly at stake, Americans realize that (left or right) and will step up to the plate as they have always done in such instances.

MurphDog
02-29-2008, 05:50 PM
Actually we can and do live with it (Oklahoma City anyone) it just needs to be suppressed (managed per your cartoo) to the greatest extent possible without giving up our liberties.

Do you believe there are distinctions in types of terrorism?

Logical
02-29-2008, 05:50 PM
And I believe you are smart enough to understand that if you make an exception to military service for one war you will have opened a gate that can never be closed.


Then you would have to agree our leaders need to stop getting us involved in unjust occupations (Iraq) and wars Vietnam and Korea.

banyon
02-29-2008, 05:51 PM
You do have a choice and so far I havent seen too many that would lead me to believe that you a conservative - there are some posts even in here that would cause a loss of that membership card...

You don't understand, he means conservative in some outdated 19th century Edmund Burke-esque sense of the word that basically means 'anarchist" in today's language.

Logical
02-29-2008, 05:52 PM
Do you believe there are distinctions in types of terrorism?

Please elaborate on your question (without more information the answer must be yes)

vailpass
02-29-2008, 05:52 PM
Nobody is arguing against that.

The argument is that the Iraq war is not a "time of national crisis." Nor the Afghanistan war. The Vietnam war was not a time of national crisis either.

I didn't realize we were discussing a specific war. I understood the topic to be "is it okay not to report for duty if you are drafted."

My stance is that no matter what you personally feel if you wish to remain a citizen of a country you must defend her when called to do so.

Taco John
02-29-2008, 05:52 PM
You do have a choice and so far I havent seen too many that would lead me to believe that you a conservative - there are some posts even in here that would cause a loss of that membership card...



There is no conservative membership card. Just conservative positions. I don't hold any "liberal" positions, if by liberal you mean "collectivist." In fact, I'm quite certain you hold more collectivist positions than I do.

I'm a constitutional conservative. I'm not a flighty "what does conservative mean today" conservative. I pretty much keep my bearings on the Constitution and original intent.

banyon
02-29-2008, 05:53 PM
I didn't realize we were discussing a specific war. I understood the topic to be "is it okay not to report for duty if you are drafted."

My stance is that no matter what you personally feel if you wish to remain a citizen of a country you must defend her when called to do so.

Does this viewpoint extend to the SS as well?

MurphDog
02-29-2008, 05:53 PM
There is no conservative membership card. Just conservative positions. I don't hold any "liberal" positions, if by liberal you mean "collectivist." In fact, I'm quite certain you hold more collectivist positions than I do.

I'm a constitutional conservative. I'm not a flighty "what does conservative mean today" conservative. I pretty much keep my bearings on the Constitution and original intent.

border line libertarian?

Adept Havelock
02-29-2008, 05:53 PM
You do have a choice and so far I havent seen too many that would lead me to believe that you a conservative - there are some posts even in here that would cause a loss of that membership card...

I have to ask, who appointed you the judge of who is and is not a conservative?

What "type" of conservative are you talking about?

I'm fiscally conservative, and socially a hedonist.

Is Mike Huckabee a "conservative"? Socially, perhaps. Fiscally? No way. Much like the current resident of 1600 Penn. Ave.

More to the point, why should any of us give a flying f*** if you feel they deserve a particular label or not? :hmmm:

vailpass
02-29-2008, 05:53 PM
How is someone not subject to military discipline (a draft-dodger) going to be court martialed? :hmmm:

IIRC, the ones that went on trial during Vietnam were tried in civil courts and imprisoned, not shot.

Hi AH,
I was, of course, speaking with much hyperbole. There aren't firing squads any more.
There are however court martials for you if you dodge the draft and get caught.

Logical
02-29-2008, 05:55 PM
I didn't realize we were discussing a specific war. I understood the topic to be "is it okay not to report for duty if you are drafted."

My stance is that no matter what you personally feel if you wish to remain a citizen of a country you must defend her when called to do so.


You have been in the thread too long to pull this sort of dodge. The thread has clearly been discussing just and unjust wars.

vailpass
02-29-2008, 05:55 PM
Does this viewpoint extend to the SS as well?

I'm sorry, please tell me what you mean by SS?
The Nazis?

MurphDog
02-29-2008, 05:56 PM
Please elaborate on your question (without more information the answer must be yes)

Ok fair enough - in your mind is there a distinction between the following actions:

Oklahoma City
9-11
Darfur
etc

And is there a distinction between groups like the following and their actions/tactics:

Al Qaeda
Baathist
IRA
etc.

banyon
02-29-2008, 05:56 PM
I'm sorry, please tell me what you mean by SS?
The Nazis?

sure, their country asked them to defend it, they didn't draft-dodge.

vailpass
02-29-2008, 05:58 PM
You have been in the thread too long to pull this sort of dodge. The thread has clearly been discussing just and unjust wars.

Don't accuse me of dodging. I started this line of discussion here:
If you state that if drafted you would not report are you not saying you would dodge the draft?

I may be a lot of things but a dodger I am not.

Micjones
02-29-2008, 05:59 PM
Okay thanks that tells me all I need to know about your position.

Sure...
You take the thumbnail view of my opinions and you've heard all you need to know? You don't even espouse the romanticized values you pretend this country offers its citizens.

vailpass
02-29-2008, 06:00 PM
sure, their country asked them to defend it, they didn't draft-dodge.

Dude you are better than this:). Are you really going to make me answer this apples and oranges question?

vailpass
02-29-2008, 06:01 PM
Sure...
You take the thumbnail view of my opinions and you've heard all you need to know? You don't even espouse the romanticized values you pretend this country offers its citizens.

I apologize if I offended you, it was not my intent to do so. You laid out your position clearly, I could see that there is no way we would ever agree on that issue, so I agreed to disagree.

banyon
02-29-2008, 06:01 PM
Dude you are better than this. Are you really going to make me answer this apples and oranges question?

I don't know your position, but I would guess that you don't believe that there's NO point at which you could refuse to answer a call to draft. I'm trying to get you to specify a point of principle at which someone would justifiably refuse.

Micjones
02-29-2008, 06:02 PM
I apologize if I offended you, it was not my intent to do so. You laid out your position clearly, I could see that there is no way we would ever agree on that issue, so I agreed to disagree.

I'm not offended.
I just realize that you haven't heard enough of my position to make such an evaluation, but you're certainly entitled.

I just don't buy this crap about the need to snuff out terrorism as the reason why we're prosecuting this unjust war. I would if I wasn't watching the current administration strip AMERICAN PEOPLE of their freedoms. I would believe it if I wasn't reading and hearing about bills being signed every day that all but punch holes in the Constitution.

Logical
02-29-2008, 06:02 PM
Ok fair enough - in your mind is there a distinction between the following actions:

Oklahoma City
9-11
Darfur
etc

(not really to me they are horrible acts) having said that not every act of international terror is our responsibility to clean up, so when you add Darfur I say nope different scope.

And is there a distinction between groups like the following and their actions/tactics:

Al Qaeda
Baathist
IRA
etc.
(all are equally reprehensible terrorist groups, some are not our problem i.e. IRA others are sometimes our problem and other times not our problem AQ, while Internal Terrorist such as represented by McVeigh are always our problem.)

Taco John
02-29-2008, 06:02 PM
I didn't realize we were discussing a specific war. I understood the topic to be "is it okay not to report for duty if you are drafted."

How can you talk about a draft without talking about specific wars? America was under no threat during the Vietnam war, but the federal government still forced people into involuntary servitude. This is the number one reason why we lost this war. When the federal government forces people to fight in wars that have nothing to do with the defense of America, we lose. If I were drafted to fight in a war like Vietnam that has nothing to do with the defense of America, I would scoff at the idea that it's my duty. I don't own the federal government my blood against my will for foreign adventures that have nothing to do with the protection of America. I'm an American, not a cow. I refuse to be treated like cattle.





My stance is that no matter what you personally feel if you wish to remain a citizen of a country you must defend her when called to do so.

Thankfully, there is no constitutional backing for your position. Thankfully, there is for mine.

vailpass
02-29-2008, 06:03 PM
I don't know your position, but I would guess that you don't believe that there's NO point at which you could refuse to answer a call to draft. I'm trying to get you to specify a point of principle at which someone would justifiably refuse.

I'll have steal one from the SCOTUS and say that I can't define it but I'll know it when I see it.

vailpass
02-29-2008, 06:04 PM
How can you talk about a draft without talking about specific wars? America was under no threat during the Vietnam war, but the federal government still forced people into involuntary servitude. This is the number one reason why we lost this war. When the federal government forces people to fight in wars that have nothing to do with the defense of America, we lose. If I were drafted to fight in a war like Vietnam that has nothing to do with the defense of America, I would scoff at the idea that it's my duty. I don't own the federal government my blood against my will for foreign adventures that have nothing to do with the protection of America. I'm an American, not a cow. I refuse to be treated like cattle.







Thankfully, there is no constitutional backing for your position. Thankfully, there is for mine.

I'm not talking about A draft, I'm talking about THE draft. This isn't a cafeteria plan, you don't get to pick which war you want to fight. If drafted you go end of story. Constitutional backing for dodging the draft? Yeah be sure to bring that one up during your trial.

Logical
02-29-2008, 06:04 PM
Don't accuse me of dodging. I started this line of discussion here:


I may be a lot of things but a dodger I am not.

Wow that post is worthy of a DEnise spin award.

Micjones
02-29-2008, 06:05 PM
I'm not talking about A draft, I'm talking about THE draft. This isn't a cafeteria plan, you don't get to pick which war you want to fight. If drafted you go end of story.

Do you have children?
Would you be willing to send your children to die in a war that you believed had nothing to do with the protection of American freedom?

Adept Havelock
02-29-2008, 06:05 PM
How can you talk about a draft without talking about specific wars? America was under no threat during the Vietnam war, but the federal government still forced people into involuntary servitude. This is the number one reason why we lost this war.

Uh, no. Not even close, really. The #1 reason we lost was geopolitical reality dictated we couldn't invade and occupy Laos, Cambodia, and N. Vietnam (to deny our enemy a safe haven) without broadening the war to include the USSR and/or the PRC. Which, of course, would likely have escalated into thermonuclear unpleasantness.

Carry on.

banyon
02-29-2008, 06:05 PM
I'll have steal one from the SCOTUS and say that I can't define it but I'll know it when I see it.

Uh, huh. Ok. thanks for playing. Lovely Parting gifts...etc.

Logical
02-29-2008, 06:07 PM
I'm not talking about A draft, I'm talking about THE draft. This isn't a cafeteria plan, you don't get to pick which war you want to fight. If drafted you go end of story. Constitutional backing for dodging the draft? Yeah be sure to bring that one up during your trial.

Seriously, if given the choice of a Nazi style servitude or moving to Canada or Europe. I guess even I have to choose moving, I love my country but lets not be stupid about it.

vailpass
02-29-2008, 06:09 PM
Wow that post is worthy of a DEnise spin award.

Oh you bonofasitch Vlad :) what did I ever do to you to deserve that?:cuss:

vailpass
02-29-2008, 06:10 PM
Do you have children?
Would you be willing to send your children to die in a war that you believed had nothing to do with the protection of American freedom?

I would be proud to see my children answer the call of their nation if drafted.
I would cry bitter tears to see my sons dodge the draft and forever after have to carry the mantle of coward.

Taco John
02-29-2008, 06:11 PM
I'm not talking about A draft, I'm talking about THE draft. This isn't a cafeteria plan, you don't get to pick which war you want to fight. If drafted you go end of story. Constitutional backing for dodging the draft? Yeah be sure to bring that one up during your trial.


Well, if drafted YOU go, end of story.

If drafted, I still have a brain. I'm still a free man under the terms of the Constitution. I'll still think about whether the federal government gets to spend my life or not.

vailpass
02-29-2008, 06:12 PM
Uh, huh. Ok. thanks for playing. Lovely Parting gifts...etc.

Not sure what you mean by this. Let me answer another way: I can foresee no instance where it would be acceptable to evade the draft in the US. I do not ever see us turning Nazi.

Micjones
02-29-2008, 06:13 PM
I would be proud to see my children answer the call of their nation if drafted.

To fight a war that you could substantiate was unjust?

vailpass
02-29-2008, 06:15 PM
Well, if drafted YOU go, end of story.

If drafted, I still have a brain. I'm still a free man under the terms of the Constitution. I'll still think about whether the federal government gets to spend my life or not.

So anyone who answers the call of duty does not have a brain, is not able to think for themselves? Boy do I know a few people to whom I'd love to hear you explain that view.
If you can live the rest of your life knowing you are a coward who let other, better men do your duty for you then so be it.

banyon
02-29-2008, 06:19 PM
Not sure what you mean by this. Let me answer another way: I can foresee no instance where it would be acceptable to evade the draft in the US. I do not ever see us turning Nazi.

I mean you've answered my perfectly relevant (and indeed fruitful to getting to the heart of the dispute) question by refusing to answer.

Obviously there is some point at which you have to draw a line, you just don't want to say when, because if you do, it will make the people you are disagreeing with appear to also be reasonable, but just deciding to draw the line at a different place. It helps us cut through this "we hate freedom" or "we won't defend the country" smokescreen. I was trying to see if there was anything beyond that smokescreen, but you're not convincing me that there's anything else to it.

Logical
02-29-2008, 06:24 PM
I mean you've answered my perfectly relevant (and indeed fruitful to getting to the heart of the dispute) question by refusing to answer.

Obviously there is some point at which you have to draw a line, you just don't want to say when, because if you do, it will make the people you are disagreeing with appear to also be reasonable, but just deciding to draw the line at a different place. It helps us cut through this "we hate freedom" or "we won't defend the country" smokescreen. I was trying to see if there was anything beyond that smokescreen, but you're not convincing me that there's anything else to it.

I am pretty sure even Vailpass, has a line he would not cross, he just does not want to admit it.

Micjones
02-29-2008, 06:24 PM
I mean you've answered my perfectly relevant (and indeed fruitful to getting to the heart of the dispute) question by refusing to answer.

Obviously there is some point at which you have to draw a line, you just don't want to say when, because if you do, it will make the people you are disagreeing with appear to also be reasonable, but just deciding to draw the line at a different place. It helps us cut through this "we hate freedom" or "we won't defend the country" smokescreen. I was trying to see if there was anything beyond that smokescreen, but you're not convincing me that there's anything else to it.

EXACTLY.

Taco John
02-29-2008, 06:26 PM
So anyone who answers the call of duty does not have a brain, is not able to think for themselves? Boy do I know a few people to whom I'd love to hear you explain that view.


Duty? I'm not talking about answering the call of duty. I'm talking about answering the call of an out of control federal government who looks at you and me as cattle.


If you can live the rest of your life knowing you are a coward who let other, better men do your duty for you then so be it.


You and I have different ideas of duty. To you, duty means whatever the federal government wants it to mean. To me, it means the course of action that I feel morally obligated to take after examining the situation and determining what has to be done.

I don't care whether you or anyone thinks that I'm a coward for refusing involuntary servitude. You thinking that I'm a coward as you bleed on Iraqi soil to ensure that Exxon is able to get as much profit from me back home as possible means little to me in the grand scheme of things. Ultimately, I'm a religious man who believes that my reward for the life I live will come after the here and now, and will be based on the decisions that I make. If one of those decisions is to accept some phony "call of duty" in the service of slaughtering women and children so that oil companies are getting theirs, it doesn't comfort me much at the end of the road that I get to spend time in hell with you four our bravery (I'm not saying you or anyone in particular is going to hell. I don't know your or any one's soul. I'm just illustrating a point... which is...>). When it's all said and done, I have to account for my life and my own decisions. It matters little to me that someone might call me a coward for the moral decisions that I make.

Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. I do not belong to Caesar. In fact, Caesar answers to me.

Micjones
02-29-2008, 06:33 PM
Duty? I'm not talking about answering the call of duty. I'm talking about answering the call of an out of control federal government who looks at you and me as cattle.





You and I have different ideas of duty. To you, duty means whatever the federal government wants it to mean. To me, it means the course of action that I feel morally obligated to take after examining the situation and determining what has to be done.

I don't care whether you or anyone thinks that I'm a coward for refusing involuntary servitude. You thinking that I'm a coward as you bleed on Iraqi soil to ensure that Exxon is able to get as much profit from me back home as possible means little to me in the grand scheme of things. Ultimately, I'm a religious man who believes that my reward for the life I live will come after the here and now, and will be based on the decisions that I make. If one of those decisions is to accept some phony "call of duty" in the service of slaughtering women and children so that oil companies are getting theirs, it doesn't comfort me much at the end of the road that I get to spend time in hell with you four our bravery (I'm not saying you or anyone in particular is going to hell. I don't know your or any one's soul. I'm just illustrating a point... which is...>). When it's all said and done, I have to account for my life and my own decisions. It matters little to me that someone might call me a coward for the moral decisions that I make.

Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. I do not belong to Caesar. In fact, Caesar answers to me.

And having the bravery to stick to your religious convictions in the face of aggressive nationalism that ostracizes those who challenge American involvement in unjust wars is REAL patriotism.

irishjayhawk
02-29-2008, 06:50 PM
I'm an individual who understand and appreciates what it takes to keep this nation free.

I'm an individual who is sickened at the thought of an able bodied American male turning tail and refusing to fight because he doesn't like the ideology.

I'm an individual who has had direct family members in every American conflict since WWI. I don't appreciate people like you living off of the freedoms paid for by my relative's blood without being willing to carry your own weight.

I'm unaware we lose all right to have a contrary opinion. I was unaware that you must go with the flow. I was unaware that America is synonymous, in your estimation, with Nazi Germany.

I didn't realize we were discussing a specific war. I understood the topic to be "is it okay not to report for duty if you are drafted."

My stance is that no matter what you personally feel if you wish to remain a citizen of a country you must defend her when called to do so.

And when are we called to do so? When a President says so? When Congress is duped into war? When, exactly, is one called to do so? A war, like Iraq, can be approved by all "parties" and still be utterly stupid and nonthreatening to our defense as a country. Please, explain to me when we are "defending"? Where's the line?



I think many people already answered this. I missed the action. So kudos to those that answered most of these.

Fishpicker
03-01-2008, 02:42 AM
Muhammad Ali has done more to protect my rights than, any man conscripted in the 20th century.

Bill S Preston
03-01-2008, 03:07 AM
All right, who brought up the Nazis first?

Logical
03-01-2008, 05:48 AM
That would be me indirectly, so I get the thread beheading if anyone does.Seriously, if given the choice of a Nazi style servitude or moving to Canada or Europe. I guess even I have to choose moving, I love my country but lets not be stupid about it.

patteeu
03-01-2008, 10:47 AM
No one else made that decision for me.
It's a conclusion I've come to on my own.
After many hours of research and study.
After processing the information available to every woman and man.

This war...is unjust.

LOL

patteeu
03-01-2008, 11:01 AM
That's nonsense. Each and every one of us in this thread would likely fight in a battle if our nation was threatened. There'd be no need to have a draft because if the war is just, people will enlist by the truckload.

But when the war is unjust, you get what we see now: dropping enlistment rates.

Dropping enlistment rates? Where'd you hear that?

patteeu
03-01-2008, 11:04 AM
I guess the main difference is that most people don't view Iraq as related very importantly to our freedoms whatsoever. We're nation-building and collecting resources.

If our freedom is truly at stake, Americans realize that (left or right) and will step up to the plate as they have always done in such instances.

What resources are we collecting? Human intelligence resources?

patteeu
03-01-2008, 11:18 AM
I'm not offended.
I just realize that you haven't heard enough of my position to make such an evaluation, but you're certainly entitled.

I just don't buy this crap about the need to snuff out terrorism as the reason why we're prosecuting this unjust war. I would if I wasn't watching the current administration strip AMERICAN PEOPLE of their freedoms. I would believe it if I wasn't reading and hearing about bills being signed every day that all but punch holes in the Constitution.

What do you know about the constitution? I get a kick out of all of the new constitutionalists in our midst. I have to wonder where you were on this subject before Bush and before US casualties started to mount (at least to the small degree that they have) in Iraq. Indeed, I wonder where you'll be on this subject in 2009 if we have a President Obama. No doubt, the constitution will be less important to you when we get back to having it raped by liberals.

And BTW, there are no bills signed these days without first passing through a Congress that is dominated by democrats so lets spread whatever credit is due around a little bit.

patteeu
03-01-2008, 11:30 AM
I mean you've answered my perfectly relevant (and indeed fruitful to getting to the heart of the dispute) question by refusing to answer.

Obviously there is some point at which you have to draw a line, you just don't want to say when, because if you do, it will make the people you are disagreeing with appear to also be reasonable, but just deciding to draw the line at a different place. It helps us cut through this "we hate freedom" or "we won't defend the country" smokescreen. I was trying to see if there was anything beyond that smokescreen, but you're not convincing me that there's anything else to it.

I'll answer your question. Wherever the line is, when you draw it, you are making the choice to choose sides against your country. If a good-hearted German had decided that Hitler's Germany was evil and had decided to dodge rather than be drawn into Hitler's army, that German should not expect Hitler's Germany to see him as a well-intentioned patriot who was conscientiously standing up for larger German principles. Instead, he's elected to take a position at odds with his country and ought to expect to be treated as an enemy.

We all get to make our own individual decision about any particular circumstance we find ourselves in, but we have to live with the consequences of those decisions. Americans are not obligated to see someone who refuses to be drafted into the US military on the basis of personal calculations of what is just or unjust as honorable. In fact, I'd argue that there is some obligation to view that person as dishonorable no matter how much you sympathize with their reasoning. I'd carve out an exception for people who have an established history that makes them legitimate conscientious objectors (e.g. a lifelong Quaker pacifist).

banyon
03-01-2008, 11:37 AM
I'll answer your question. Wherever the line is, when you draw it, you are making the choice to choose sides against your country. If a good-hearted German had decided that Hitler's Germany was evil and had decided to dodge rather than be drawn into Hitler's army, that German should not expect Hitler's Germany to see him as a well-intentioned patriot who was conscientiously standing up for larger German principles. Instead, he's elected to take a position at odds with his country and ought to expect to be treated as an enemy.



While I appreciate your thought-out reply, I couldn't disagree more with your characterization. Why must someone be "choosing sides against their country"? Why can't they be "disagreeing with the people who happen to be in charge of their country at the time and making disastrous decisions which may ruin the essence of what the country stands for"? What precludes that, other than a desire on your part to be able to continue to conflate people's disagreements about foreign policy as cowardly or unpatriotic because it is a more convenient argument strategy than actually having to talk about the s****y policy?

banyon
03-01-2008, 11:39 AM
What resources are we collecting? Human intelligence resources?

Er...really?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_iraq_key_maps/img/maps/iraq_oil_map355.gif

banyon
03-01-2008, 11:41 AM
Sorry Logical, I beat you to it. :D

That would be me indirectly, so I get the thread beheading if anyone does

Does this viewpoint extend to the SS as well?

a1na2
03-01-2008, 12:54 PM
And having the bravery to stick to your religious convictions in the face of aggressive nationalism that ostracizes those who challenge American involvement in unjust wars is REAL patriotism.

He's not talking about religious beliefs, he's talking about his own personal anti-establishment beliefs.

Taco John
03-01-2008, 02:15 PM
He's not talking about religious beliefs, he's talking about his own personal anti-establishment beliefs.

I was talking about my Christian religious beliefs...

patteeu
03-01-2008, 02:30 PM
While I appreciate your thought-out reply, I couldn't disagree more with your characterization. Why must someone be "choosing sides against their country"? Why can't they be "disagreeing with the people who happen to be in charge of their country at the time and making disastrous decisions which may ruin the essence of what the country stands for"? What precludes that, other than a desire on your part to be able to continue to conflate people's disagreements about foreign policy as cowardly or unpatriotic because it is a more convenient argument strategy than actually having to talk about the s****y policy?

We aren't talking about policy here, we're talking about the abstract idea of dodging your country's draft. I'd like to think I'd be sympathetic with the German draft dodger who bails out on the Nazi war machine, but given the state of Germany at the time I don't think the minority that would choose such a path can be called the real German patriots. In fact, they are people who turned against their country because they didn't like it's present state.

I've talked about the policy itself plenty. People in this thread weren't really talking about the policy when they announced that after much personal research and reflection they've come to the conclusion that the policy is unjust. Nor were people talking about the policy when they announced that they wouldn't fight in an unjust war and that they'd choose to dodge a draft if called upon to do so. Why should we start limiting ourselves to talking about the policy only now that some are questioning these people?

And would it really get us anywhere talking about the policy? There are a lot of uninformed people out there who don't have a clue what the policy really is, but if we ignore them for the moment and give everyone here the benefit of the doubt, what is it going to prove to find out that we disagree about the policy? It's not going to change my opinion of anyone who would bail on the country just because they didn't like what's going on in Iraq. That's a pretty darned low threshold for bailing on your country. I wasn't old enough during Vietnam to know how I would have reacted then, but we've had a number of armed conflicts since then that I disagreed with and the thought that I'd rather flee to another country than get drafted has never crossed my mind.

patteeu
03-01-2008, 02:31 PM
Er...really?


That's a pretty creative use of the word "collecting".

Logical
03-01-2008, 02:55 PM
Sorry Logical, I beat you to it. :D
Thanks for stepping up, you can have that stump right over there next to mine. We can toss a coin to see who gets to be first with the sharper blade.

a1na2
03-01-2008, 03:25 PM
I was talking about my Christian religious beliefs...
:BS:

Taco John
03-01-2008, 05:12 PM
I'd carve out an exception for people who have an established history that makes them legitimate conscientious objectors (e.g. a lifelong Quaker pacifist).


Are you saying that someone would need to be a Quaker in order to credibly conscientiously object? A regular Christian doesn't cut the bill here? They also have to be a luddite?

What's your reasoning?

Taco John
03-01-2008, 05:17 PM
:BS:


He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

1 John 2:4

irishjayhawk
03-02-2008, 12:16 AM
Are you saying that someone would need to be a Quaker in order to credibly conscientiously object? A regular Christian doesn't cut the bill here? They also have to be a luddite?

What's your reasoning?

Can't a non-believer object as well? If not, isn't that a religious test for the draft? And thus, discrimination?

Taco John
03-02-2008, 01:18 AM
Can't a non-believer object as well? If not, isn't that a religious test for the draft? And thus, discrimination?


I'm fairly certain that you don't have to be religious to come to the conclusion that killing innocent people is wrong.

Valiant
03-02-2008, 02:35 AM
LOL.. phospherus counts as a chemical weapon now???

Almost everything they said was cherry picked information, then they could never prove if the bodies were killed from us or from their own.. The media is everywhere, there would have been news cast the next day..

Kind of like the videos showing people in the middle east parading around their dead children after the Americans bombed then.. Except for when they accidentally dropped the dead bodies and the dead bodies got up and climbed back on the table.. dead of course.. We will also take out that these people have being trying to commit genocide on each other for 100's of years, but it is all the US's fault for the deaths..

Everything he said was hilarious, 'well I didn't personally see anything, but I heard other brigades were doing it..

The video was purely a propaganda piece for anti-war..



We are controlling the oil.. ahahahhahaha.. Yeah this war is doing our countries great in controlling oil..
----------------------------------------------------
Is our military perfect in innocence.. **** no, no military is completely innocent.. But this clip is pure garbage for the antimilitary sheep..

Valiant
03-02-2008, 02:42 AM
I'm fairly certain that you don't have to be religious to come to the conclusion that killing innocent people is wrong.

I'm fairly certain that you cannot have a war without unfortunate civilian casualties.. Faster the Iraqi citizens stand up for themselves and start going after the terrorists then we can leave..

Unless you believe that the US army is the one blowing up: markets, hospitals, schools; kidnapping Iraqi military, police, leaders and killing them.. Yeah that is all the US doing that..


There is a civil war going on over there that half the population does not want to fight because they are afraid, they just bitch about it when the US takes over and has to fight for them.. Kind of sad that your neighbors will not help you and just watch if you are being kidnapped and executed later in the name of a different religious sect..