PDA

View Full Version : Planet war poll


RNR
03-23-2003, 08:28 AM
I heard on the radio that Bush has 76% approval in one of the lastest polls, so I put it to the Planet, where do you stand? A vote is what I am looking for not a debate, reply if you want.

Skip Towne
03-23-2003, 08:38 AM
I'm for it.

fbal4lif32
03-23-2003, 08:44 AM
Sadaam must go...

http://mysmilies.creativesell.net/contrib/sarge/BoomSmilie_anim.gif http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/contrib/ed/bluboomteamenforcer.gif http://smilies.networkessence.net/s/contrib/anym/hanged.gif

Raiderhader
03-23-2003, 08:49 AM
I must say I like the way you did the poll - tying Bush and the war together. Because those who are anti-war are truly anti-Bush. We no this sense these same people didn't cry bloody murder when Clinton took military action and didn't even give the UN a chance to be apart of it.


And if there is any doubt, I'm all for it.

papasmurf
03-23-2003, 10:20 AM
Which option is not for the war but completely behind our men and women fighting there.

jAZ
03-23-2003, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by raiderhader
I must say I like the way you did the poll - tying Bush and the war together. Because those who are anti-war are truly anti-Bush. We no this sense these same people didn't cry bloody murder when Clinton took military action and didn't even give the UN a chance to be apart of it.


And if there is any doubt, I'm all for it.

Funny, that's exactly why I don't like the poll... It forces you to be in favor of both or against both... I'm not either so I went with "on the fence".

Michael Michigan
03-23-2003, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by papasmurf
Which option is not for the war but completely behind our men and women fighting there.


That's a cop out.

The men and women there are fighting a war.

If you are behind them, you are behind the war they are fighting.

Fat Elvis
03-23-2003, 10:45 AM
Oddly, I am staunchly anti-Bush, but I am for this particular war.

Fat Elvis
03-23-2003, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by Slayer Diablo
Blood makes the grass grow;
Semper Fi, may die;
Kill Saddam on three!


finally getting the hang of Haiku

Not yet, Slayer.
The second line has to have 7 syllables. Just remember, 5-7-5....
;)

patteeu
03-23-2003, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by raiderhader
I must say I like the way you did the poll - tying Bush and the war together. Because those who are anti-war are truly anti-Bush. We no this sense these same people didn't cry bloody murder when Clinton took military action and didn't even give the UN a chance to be apart of it.


And if there is any doubt, I'm all for it.

You are right in many cases, but there are also quite a few people out there who are neither liberal nor do they take their anti-war stance because they dislike Bush. Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak, Joseph Sobran, Paul Craig Roberts, Jude Wanniski to name a few. Most of these guys (if not all) were also against Clinton's military adventures. I won't say that they are all Bush supporters, but it isn't fair to say that they are anti-war because they are anti-Bush.

Most of the vocal anti-war Planeteers are probably just Bush haters though so you do have a good point in many cases.

patteeu
03-23-2003, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by Michael Michigan



That's a cop out.

The men and women there are fighting a war.

If you are behind them, you are behind the war they are fighting.

So you can't be against war and be a good American too? :BS:

Rausch
03-23-2003, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by patteeu


You are right in many cases, but there are also quite a few people out there who are neither liberal nor do they take their anti-war stance because they dislike Bush. Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak, Joseph Sobran, Paul Craig Roberts, Jude Wanniski to name a few. Most of these guys (if not all) were also against Clinton's military adventures. I won't say that they are all Bush supporters, but it isn't fair to say that they are anti-war because they are anti-Bush.

Most of the vocal anti-war Planeteers are probably just Bush haters though so you do have a good point in many cases.

Pat Buchanan is a fuggen antisemitic nazi.....he needs his ass kicked, and we need to quit giving him any attention at all......

Rausch
03-23-2003, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by patteeu


So you can't be against war and be a good American too? :BS:

This war?

No, not in my mind. Were this war in any way similar to a Vietnam, I'd be protesting. It is not. This is about self preservation.

If you aren't willing to fight for that, then **** you....

patteeu
03-23-2003, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by BRAD_CAUDLE


Pat Buchanan is a fuggen antisemitic nazi.....he needs his ass kicked, and we need to quit giving him any attention at all......

Buchanan is antisemitic just like Bush is guilty of genocide. The claims are made but neither are true.

Rausch
03-23-2003, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by patteeu


Buchanan is antisemitic just like Bush is guilty of genocide. The claims are made but neither are true.


Really?

Care to address his antisemitic comments then?

patteeu
03-23-2003, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by BRAD_CAUDLE


This war?

No, not in my mind. Were this war in any way similar to a Vietnam, I'd be protesting. It is not. This is about self preservation.

If you aren't willing to fight for that, then **** you....

A lot of people thought that Vietnam was about self preservation too. You are probably too young to know, but people were really afraid of losing the global cold war to communism back in the day.

You get the benefit of hindsight with respect to Vietnam but act like it was obvious and our parents were all dumbf*cks.

Rausch
03-23-2003, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by patteeu


You get the benefit of hindsight with respect to Vietnam but act like it was obvious and our parents were all dumbf*cks.

Absolutely not.

I said that I WOULD PROTEST a war I thought was similar to Vietnam. The goal was never to win Vietnam, but to indirectly fight russia through it, and break their bank over a period of years. This was just one aspect of the war, and our war on Communism.

That doesn't mean I like it. I can't argue with the effectiveness of that plan, but I can argue that far too many died in the process. There were other ways to cause them to spend-out their Empire.....

I don't blame our parents, but our parents leaders.....

Michael Michigan
03-23-2003, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by patteeu


So you can't be against war and be a good American too? :BS:


Pay attention. I'll go s l o w e r...


Soldiers fight wars.

If you support the soldiers, you support their job.

Which is war.




"good American?"


Another cop out.



*

jAZ
03-23-2003, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by BRAD_CAUDLE


This war?

No, not in my mind. Were this war in any way similar to a Vietnam, I'd be protesting. It is not. This is about self preservation.

If you aren't willing to fight for that, then **** you....

There are a few (or a lot, I don't really know how many) that aren't against this war becuase it is "a bush thing" or becuase they are pro-france or pro-UN... they are against this war becuase they are against ALL forms of war. They are pacifists.

That doesn't make them bad American's. It certainly makes them bad soldiers.

Brock
03-23-2003, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by BRAD_CAUDLE



Really?

Care to address his antisemitic comments then?

He's been smart enough not to make any directly. However, his admiration for Hitler and his assertions that "the Jews" have somehow co-opted the US government on foreign policy issues should give you a clue.

CHIEF4EVER
03-23-2003, 11:11 AM
Pro Bush, Pro war (this war). Saddam is a fuggin butcher and needs to feed worms. So do his scumbag sons. I have NO doubt that this feces sausage has no reservations whatsoever about producing and delivering WOMD to terrorists for their use against the West, us in particular. :grr:

Rausch
03-23-2003, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by Justin


That doesn't make them bad American's. It certainly makes them bad soldiers.

It makes them idealistic idiots and cowards...

patteeu
03-23-2003, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by BRAD_CAUDLE



Really?

Care to address his antisemitic comments then?

Not personally, but I will direct you to a thoughtful article from the Lew Rockwell site so that you can have a little bit of fair and balanced input before you form your prejudices:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blumert1.html

Rausch
03-23-2003, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Brock Landers


He's been smart enough not to make any directly. However, his admiration for Hitler and his assertions that "the Jews" have somehow co-opted the US government on foreign policy issues should give you a clue.

Not to mention the fact that this country is moving more towards multiculturalism and diversity scares the man stiff...He's written a fairly scary book about America "losing its cultural integrity." He, at heart, is scared America might not automatically equal white majority.

patteeu
03-23-2003, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Michael Michigan



Pay attention. I'll go s l o w e r...


Soldiers fight wars.

If you support the soldiers, you support their job.

Which is war.




"good American?"


Another cop out.



*

So then are you saying that you CAN be a good American and oppose this war (which by your definition would mean that you oppose our troops)?

The Pedestrian
03-23-2003, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by BRAD_CAUDLE


It makes them idealistic idiots and cowards...

:toast:

Brock
03-23-2003, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by BRAD_CAUDLE


Not to mention the fact that this country is moving more towards multiculturalism and diversity scares the man stiff...He's written a fairly scary book about America "losing its cultural integrity." He, at heart, is scared America might not automatically equal white majority.

You are right. He is scared, just like the old men in the Taliban were scared of the future. They're all about the past.

Michael Michigan
03-23-2003, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by patteeu


So then are you saying that you CAN be a good American and oppose this war (which by your definition would mean that you oppose our troops)?



Sigh----s l o w e r...


I didn't mention good or bad Americans.


You did.



*

jAZ
03-23-2003, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by BRAD_CAUDLE


It makes them idealistic idiots and cowards...

That could be, but it seems we can agree it doesn't make them bad-americans.

CHIEF4EVER
03-23-2003, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by BRAD_CAUDLE


It makes them idealistic idiots and cowards...

The thing that pisses me off the most is that MOST of the liberal pantywaist fu*cks not only protest against those who protect their freedoms, but don't have the stones to serve and EARN their freedom themselves. Idiots and cowards, YES - they are. FU*K THEM.:grr:

Brock
03-23-2003, 11:19 AM
What is this good American/bad American bullshit? Either you support the safety and sanctity of the United States or you don't. Your actions define what you are.

Rausch
03-23-2003, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by patteeu


Not personally, but I will direct you to a thoughtful article from the Lew Rockwell site so that you can have a little bit of fair and balanced input before you form your prejudices:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blumert1.html

First, I'm 75% conservative, and that should be obvious by now. Second I'm mostly German myself, so to throw around Nazi you'd think I'd be sensitive to the misuse of that word.
Third, he's a fughead. Yes, he's a politician who's able to often say the right thing at the right time. More often than not though that is Pat's problem: putting his foot in his mouth.

I don't support his stance that we are being invaded by Islamic/muslim beliefs, and that is detrimental to our nation. I couldn't give a fat frogs ass what religon most of this country is. I'm not too fond of any of them, to be frank.

Buchanan hides, not to effectively, behind morality when he really means whitey....

Rausch
03-23-2003, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Justin


That could be, but it seems we can agree it doesn't make them bad-americans.

I don't believe we can....

stevieray
03-23-2003, 11:22 AM
Oath. I'm really burned out on people discrediting the seriousness of the oath that the soldiers take before they enter the Military. or the honor and integrity that comes with that oath.


Is it to say he oaths and pledges that our President, SCJ, Policemen, Doctors are just words we say, but don't really count?

Maybe it's the courage that these dedicated, disciplined people who are willing to put their LIFE on the line for YOU that you support.

Bottom line without these people, we aren't free.

The Pedestrian
03-23-2003, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Justin


That could be, but it seems we can agree it doesn't make them bad-americans.

Would you really want them in this country, though? :spock:

patteeu
03-23-2003, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by Brock Landers


He's been smart enough not to make any directly. However, his admiration for Hitler and his assertions that "the Jews" have somehow co-opted the US government on foreign policy issues should give you a clue.

His "admiration of Hitler" was merely a recognition that Hitler nearly succeeded in conquering Europe via his skillful political and military maneuvers. There is NOTHING that should lead anyone to believe that Pat Buchanan admired the things for which Hitler stood. I'm sure the ADL has done much good in the past, but you shouldn't swallow their propaganda (or any other interest group's propaganda for that matter) without any critical analysis whatsoever.

I admire Bill Clinton's political skills. It would be a complete distortion to simply say that I admire Bill Clinton.

patteeu
03-23-2003, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by Michael Michigan




Sigh----s l o w e r...


I didn't mention good or bad Americans.


You did.



*

Keep slowing down, I'm sure I'll catch up sooner or later.

I mentioned good/bad Americans and then you disagreed with me. Maybe you can clear this up by answering this simple question instead of dodging it. Can a good American oppose this war?

Michael Michigan
03-23-2003, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by Brock Landers
What is this good American/bad American bullshit? Either you support the safety and sanctity of the United States or you don't. Your actions define what you are.


Dammitt Brock--

I was working up to that.




;)

Brock
03-23-2003, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by patteeu


His "admiration of Hitler" was merely a recognition that Hitler nearly succeeded in conquering Europe via his skillful political and military maneuvers. There is NOTHING that should lead anyone to believe that Pat Buchanan admired the things for which Hitler stood. I'm sure the ADL has done much good in the past, but you shouldn't swallow their propaganda (or any other interest group's propaganda for that matter) without any critical analysis whatsoever.

I admire Bill Clinton's political skills. It would be a complete distortion to simply say that I admire Bill Clinton.

Would you describe any of Hitler's actions as "courageous"? Buchanan has.

I have not one single good thing to say about Hitler. I guess that is where you and I part company.

brent102fire
03-23-2003, 11:33 AM
I heard a pretty good analogy by a caller on a local radio station. Granted, it's not the same thing, but the bottom line and feeling is the same. He said This war with Saddam and his regime is comparable to how you would feel if a child molester or convicted murderer moved next door to your family and your home. Saddam is a neighbor of America, where we live, feel safe or used to feel safe and have freedom. However, after 9/11 and Saddam's resistance to destroying WMD, we are no longer safe in America. You would feel the same way if this child molester or murderer moved next door. You would feel unsafe, vulnerable, anger, and fear. That's how we feel knowing us American's are subject to terrorist attacks and Saddam's WMD. We are no longer safe as long as Saddam is in power and has people that hate America and Americans more than anything else in the world. If a child molester or murderer were to live next door to you and your family, you and your neighbors would do everything in your power to get that person out of your neighborhood, right? It's the same thing with Saddam, only on a larger scale. No one in America will ever feel as safe as they did before 9/11 and no one will feel any safer until Saddam is removed from power and the WMD are destroyed.

I know it's not the same thing, but your feelings inside would be the same. Just thought I would share it with the Board...JMO and that of the Caller's. GOD BLESS THE TROOPS

Rausch
03-23-2003, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by patteeu


His "admiration of Hitler" was merely a recognition that Hitler nearly succeeded in conquering Europe via his skillful political and military maneuvers. There is NOTHING that should lead anyone to believe that Pat Buchanan admired the things for which Hitler stood. I'm sure the ADL has done much good in the past, but you shouldn't swallow their propaganda (or any other interest group's propaganda for that matter) without any critical analysis whatsoever.

I admire Bill Clinton's political skills. It would be a complete distortion to simply say that I admire Bill Clinton.

I never understood this. Everyone says hitler was a madman, but a G-Knee-us....


:BS:


Adolph was an amazing speaker, and had a great comprehension of how to motivate and manipulate people, but the smarts end there.

He was an idiot. He killed his best military mind and refused advice from nearly all of them. His mistakes in Russia and Africa were monumental, and lead to his defeat.

With the amount of technology he had at that time he had an edge over any nation he would have fought. Had he been even slightly crafty when it came to strategy we would all be speaking German. Why he is given this unfounded compliment that he is somehow a genius is beyond me.

Michael Michigan
03-23-2003, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by patteeu


Keep slowing down, I'm sure I'll catch up sooner or later.

I mentioned good/bad Americans and then you disagreed with me. Maybe you can clear this up by answering this simple question instead of dodging it. Can a good American oppose this war?


Hey something we can agree on-


Perhaps If I dumb myself down enough I will likely be able to understand you illogical stance.

Let me try--

I didn't disagree with you---


I stayed on topic.


You changed the topic as you had no answer for my analysis.



*

patteeu
03-23-2003, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Brock Landers


Would you describe any of Hitler's actions as "courageous"? Buchanan has.

I have not one single good thing to say about Hitler. I guess that is where you and I part company.

Oh please. It takes a lot of balls to argue against Hitler. You are very brave demagogue.

Brock
03-23-2003, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by patteeu
Oh please. It takes a lot of balls to argue against Hitler. You are very brave demagogue.

Is that what you think you're showing? Balls? I thought what you were showing was a couple of inches aft of there.

jAZ
03-23-2003, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by Slayer Diablo


Would you really want them in this country, though? :spock:

I want one in my family... I'm married to one... She's certainly not militant, and she's not leading any protests, but she is a reasonable voice. It falls under the thought that reasonable people can disagree.

She and I disagree on a lot of what's going on. Just like people here and I disagree with what happened leading up to the war.

There IS middle ground between the two extremes, and usually that's where the truth lies... somewhere in the middle.

But the extreme views (both sides) are essential to ensuring balance in our society.

I wouldn't want a Pacifist in our military, but I welcome them into this country, into the discussion and into my family.

patteeu
03-23-2003, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by BRAD_CAUDLE


I never understood this. Everyone says hitler was a madman, but a G-Knee-us....


:BS:


Adolph was an amazing speaker, and had a great comprehension of how to motivate and manipulate people, but the smarts end there.

He was an idiot. He killed his best military mind and refused advice from nearly all of them. His mistakes in Russia and Africa were monumental, and lead to his defeat.

With the amount of technology he had at that time he had an edge over any nation he would have fought. Had he been even slightly crafty when it came to strategy we would all be speaking German. Why he is given this unfounded compliment that he is somehow a genius is beyond me.

I didn't say that Buchanan was right in his narrow praise for Hitler, I just said that Brocks characterization (which made it sound like Buchanan thought highly of Hitler) was a case of turning reality on its head. And it is hardly evidence of anti-semitism since his praise had nothing to do with Hitler's view on Jews.

BTW, watch out. You've made a positive comment about Hitler (no matter how well caveated), I'm sure Brock will determine that you are a nazi now.

patteeu
03-23-2003, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Michael Michigan



Hey something we can agree on-


Perhaps If I dumb myself down enough I will likely be able to understand you illogical stance.

Let me try--

I didn't disagree with you---


I stayed on topic.


You changed the topic as you had no answer for my analysis.



*

Dodge.

Brock
03-23-2003, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by patteeu
I'm sure Brock will determine that you are a nazi now.

I have not characterized any person as a nazi. The weakness of your argument is summarized by your assertion that I have.

Hitler nearly succeeded in exterminating my entire family. Sorry I can't overlook that fact.

patteeu
03-23-2003, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Brock Landers


I have not characterized any person as a nazi. The weakness of your argument is summarized by your assertion that I have.

Hitler nearly succeeded in exterminating my entire family. Sorry I can't overlook that fact.

I have made no such assertion. I just said that I was sure you would based on your previous simplistic arguments.

I'm happy that he didn't get your whole family, but that's no excuse for your unwillingness to use your head. Pat Buchanan didn't do jack squat to your family but you choose to libel him.

patteeu
03-23-2003, 12:04 PM
You said:

Originally posted by Michael Michigan



That's a cop out.

The men and women there are fighting a war.

If you are behind them, you are behind the war they are fighting.

And then clarified:

Originally posted by Michael Michigan



Pay attention. I'll go s l o w e r...


Soldiers fight wars.

If you support the soldiers, you support their job.

Which is war.




"good American?"


Another cop out.



*

This "logic" is faulty. Of course you can oppose the war policy while hoping for the best results for our troops and our country in the battles that result from that policy. What part don't you get?

Rausch
03-23-2003, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by patteeu


I have made no such assertion. I just said that I was sure you would based on your previous simplistic arguments.

I'm happy that he didn't get your whole family, but that's no excuse for your unwillingness to use your head. Pat Buchanan didn't do jack squat to your family but you choose to libel him.

I'm the one that "libeled him", Brock just agreed.

Brock
03-23-2003, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by patteeu


I have made no such assertion. I just said that I was sure you would based on your previous simplistic arguments.

I'm happy that he didn't get your whole family, but that's no excuse for your unwillingness to use your head. Pat Buchanan didn't do jack squat to your family but you choose to libel him.

"I am sure Brock will now determine that you are a nazi" seems to carry the inference that I have done so at some point in the past. If I misunderstood, my bad.

I have no libeled Buchanan at all. I stated that he admired Hitler. He does. He also has implied on several occasions that Jews are somehow controlling our government behind the scenes, and that is uncomfortably parallel with Hitler's beliefs even before he obtained his chokehold on power in Germany.

patteeu
03-23-2003, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by BRAD_CAUDLE


I never understood this. Everyone says hitler was a madman, but a G-Knee-us....


:BS:


Adolph was an amazing speaker, and had a great comprehension of how to motivate and manipulate people, but the smarts end there.

He was an idiot. He killed his best military mind and refused advice from nearly all of them. His mistakes in Russia and Africa were monumental, and lead to his defeat.

With the amount of technology he had at that time he had an edge over any nation he would have fought. Had he been even slightly crafty when it came to strategy we would all be speaking German. Why he is given this unfounded compliment that he is somehow a genius is beyond me.

Thank goodness Hitler wasn't an even better tactician. Who knows what the world would be like now if his war ambitions had been accomplished. On that, I think we can all agree.

Michael Michigan
03-23-2003, 12:10 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Michael Michigan



That's a cop out.

The men and women there are fighting a war.

If you are behind them, you are behind the war they are fighting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Originally posted by patteeu


So you can't be against war and be a good American too?


There is your first response an obvious attempt to change the subject.


You never mentioned the soldiers at all.



Cop out.

Michael Michigan
03-23-2003, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by patteeu




This "logic" is faulty. Of course you can oppose the war policy while hoping for the best results for our troops and our country in the battles that result from that policy. What part don't you get?


The war policy is to send troops into harms way to achieve objectives.


Using the same soldiers many claim to support.



If you support the soldiers, you now support the war policy.


It's not difficult to understand.



The only reason people say they "support the troops" is so they will not appear to be completely anti-American.




It's a cop out.

patteeu
03-23-2003, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by Brock Landers


"I am sure Brock will now determine that you are a nazi" seems to carry the inference that I have done so at some point in the past. If I misunderstood, my bad.

I have no libeled Buchanan at all. I stated that he admired Hitler. He does. He also has implied on several occasions that Jews are somehow controlling our government behind the scenes, and that is uncomfortably parallel with Hitler's beliefs even before he obtained his chokehold on power in Germany.

You are right. In the strict legal sense, you have not committed libel. But as I've pointed out, your simple statement was quite misleading. Misleading to the point of implying the opposite of the truth.

As for whether Jews control our government, no one can deny that the Israeli lobby has been quite successful at influencing parts of US foreign policy. As just one example, Israel is the biggest recipient of foreign aid. Bully for them. That's what lobbiests are for. Have they controlled our governement? No. Have they influenced some decisions? Without question. It is a matter of opinion as to whether that influence has been a net plus or net minus to American interests.

Personally, I am a big fan of Israel. I am also a supporter of this war and I think George W. Bush has done a great job in terms of foreign policy. But I don't project evil motives onto everyone who disagrees with me.

patteeu
03-23-2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Michael Michigan



The war policy is to send troops into harms way to achieve objectives.


Using the same soldiers many claim to support.



If you support the soldiers, you now support the war policy.


It's not difficult to understand.



The only reason people say they "support the troops" is so they will not appear to be completely anti-American.




It's a cop out.

The only reason you refuse to answer my question is because you don't have an answer. That's a cop out.

Iowanian
03-23-2003, 12:20 PM
now its being reported that the Iraqis are dressing like Civilians...and soldiers too....are "pretending to surrender" and then have fired on US troops...wounding and killing many.

So...they're mistreating OUR POWs, and Pretending to surrender......

Fug it....Kill every one of them.

KCinNY
03-23-2003, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Michael Michigan



The war policy is to send troops into harms way to achieve objectives.


Using the same soldiers many claim to support.



If you support the soldiers, you now support the war policy.


It's not difficult to understand.



The only reason people say they "support the troops" is so they will not appear to be completely anti-American.




It's a cop out.

I think the whole "I'm against the war, but for the troops" thing is a careful way of saying, "I'm not like the protesters of the 1960's. I won't spit on our returning servicemen and women. But Bush is still an idiot."

You're right. It's still a cop out.

alanm
03-23-2003, 12:27 PM
Looks like their bombing the shit out of Bagdad again. Just wondering what took so long this morning?

Michael Michigan
03-23-2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by patteeu


The only reason you refuse to answer my question is because you don't have an answer. That's a cop out.


What question?

The good/bad American crap?

Brock kind of stole my thunder, but I'll repeat it.

s l o w l y


You either support the defending of our Country or you don't.


You either support freedom or you don't.


There is no middle "I support the troops" but not their mission to defend liberty and freedom of America line of crap.


You can't have it both ways.


If you believe there are not millions of anti-Americans within our borders your partisanship is blinding you.


I'll let you make the call on who is a 'good' or 'bad' American your definitions are not black and white enough for my taste.


--too many shades of gray.

patteeu
03-23-2003, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by Michael Michigan



What question?

The good/bad American crap?

Brock kind of stole my thunder, but I'll repeat it.

s l o w l y


You either support the defending of our Country or you don't.


You either support freedom or you don't.


There is no middle "I support the troops" but not their mission to defend liberty and freedom of America line of crap.


You can't have it both ways.


If you believe there are not millions of anti-Americans within our borders your partisanship is blinding you.


I'll let you make the call on who is a 'good' or 'bad' American your definitions are not black and white enough for my taste.


--too many shades of gray.

OK, Mikey, you can stop going with the "slowly" smack. It's run its course, get some new material. :lame:

I believe there are some anti-Americans within our borders. I don't know whether there are millions or not. I am a conservative who supports this war (as I've said below) so don't pull the partisan crap because you don't know what you are talking about.

We aren't talking about my definitions. We are talking about your definitions. In YOUR OPINION, is someone who opposes the war a bad American?

If you can't answer with a simple yes or no, then help me understand what YOUR gray area is by explaining how a person who opposes the war can still be a good American. Don't give me another dodge please.

jAZ
03-23-2003, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Michael Michigan
You either support the defending of our Country or you don't.


You either support freedom or you don't.


There is no middle "I support the troops" but not their mission to defend liberty and freedom of America line of crap.

This is a very weak attempt to marginalize any dissenting opinion... and it is a load of crap for many reasons. Not the least of which, is perfectly illustrated in my family.

My wife is a pacifist and against this war. But her only 2 brothers are serving in this war. To say that she can't object to this war and still support her brothers (and anyone else over there) is ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT.

patteeu
03-23-2003, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Justin


This is a very weak attempt to marginalize any dissenting opinion... and it is a load of crap for many reasons. Not the least of which, is perfectly illustrated in my family.

My wife is a pacifist and against this war. But her only 2 brothers are serving in this war. To say that she can't object to this war and still support her brothers (and anyone else over there) is ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT.

Thank you Justin. MichaelMichigan is as bad as the hard-core politically correct crowd that he surely would criticize. Some people don't have mature ideologies, they just have slogans.

DanT
03-23-2003, 12:58 PM
How many time zones separate Baghdad from, say, New York City. It's way the hell far away and oh so far from the United States. From all the evidence I've seen, Iraq is nothing more than a regional threat, one that has been well-contained these last 10 years. We have friends in the region. That seems to me the most sensible explanation of why we're there. If Iraq were supplying terrorists that threaten the United States at anywhere near the rate of, say, the Great Lakes Region (the home of Tim McVeigh, among others) we'd have heard about it. Of all the nations that have threatened the United States in the past 100 years, I wouldn't even rank Iraq above North Vietnam, which at least was a client state of the Soviet Union. Some folks believe that their freedom is something that has a lot to do with all of the desert countries way on the other side of the globe. Perhaps they have some evidence or information that I don't have. Me, personally? Near as I can tell, almost all of the freedom being fought for in Iraq is the freedom of people that live in the region. Is that worth doing? That's a good question. Honorable people can disagree on that. I think it was clearly worth bringing the fight to Afghanistan, where the 9/11 attackers clearly had bases and where the ruling government clearly had an agenda to export their theocratic fascist bullsh!t all over the globe. I don't see Iraq as another Afghanistan.

We sure do have an obligation to our friends in the region. We also have an obligation to make right any of the tyrannies that came into existence thanks to our help during the Cold War. If we liberate people that wanted liberation and we show that our intentions are honorable, then that should be something that goes into the column of blessings from America that should help our standing in the world. However, no honest student of history considers it a sure bet that the United States is going to stick with the task of helping Iraq achieve a democratic regime. Everybody has different opinions about the likely costs and benefits of our getting involved.

I selected the anti-Bush/anti-War option, though I believe I could be persuaded to the pro-Bush/pro-War option. Basically, I believe that the citizens of this country should be leary of increasing the power and violence potential of the United States government, should only do so if there is compelling evidence that the citizens understand what they're giving up when they do so and what the benefits are, and that they're ready to pay the price. There is evidence of a large amount of misinformation in the American public about who Iraq does and does not threaten, and I've not been especially impressed by the efforts of the pro-war community to try to make a more honest accounting. They have objectives that they're afraid of enunciating clearly because they're not sure they would fly with the American people, so they instead allow the misinformation about the connections between Iraq and Al Queda to percolate and hope that will sustain the momentum in favor of their agenda being carried out. (Clearly, that's just my opinion.)

The reasons why I could be persuaded to the pro-Bush/pro-War side is that the idealist in me is inclined to nation-building and interventionism on humanitarian grounds and is also commited to securing the safety of my nation's allies.

Michael Michigan
03-23-2003, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by patteeu




We aren't talking about my definitions. We are talking about your definitions.




We would have to use your definitions---you brought up the question.

patteeu
03-23-2003, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by Michael Michigan



We would have to use your definitions---you brought up the question.

Dodge. Don't bother trying again, you obviously don't have it in you. :shake:

Michael Michigan
03-23-2003, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by Justin


This is a very weak attempt to marginalize any dissenting opinion... and it is a load of crap for many reasons. Not the least of which, is perfectly illustrated in my family.

My wife is a pacifist and against this war. But her only 2 brothers are serving in this war. To say that she can't object to this war and still support her brothers (and anyone else over there) is ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT.



Please--she may hope her brothers make it home alive---as do I--but if she is truly a pacifist she can't condone any form of war.

Pacifists who live off the blood, sacrifice and freedoms of others while living free in America make me sick.

Michael Michigan
03-23-2003, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by patteeu


Dodge. Don't bother trying again, you obviously don't have it in you. :shake:


Dodge?


I made my statement. It was a simple as I could make, but it's obviously too complex for you and it's far to cumbersome for me to explain it again.


and again


and again.

patteeu
03-23-2003, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by Michael Michigan



Dodge?


I made my statement. It was a simple as I could make, but it's obviously too complex for you and it's far to cumbersome for me to explain it again.


and again


and again.

:shake:

Michael Michigan
03-23-2003, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by patteeu


:shake:


That is one snappy comeback--


can you do it again?

VAChief
03-23-2003, 02:29 PM
Michael,

What about someone like George McGovern who served with distinction and honor in WWII...he was on record as against this conflict, but supports the troops and their efforts currently to disarm Hussein...he did stick his neck on the line when it counted...does that mean his opinion is "Un-American?

His opinion mirrors my own to some degree...I would have preferred to seek other options, but I do support President Bush and the troops once the decision was made to go forth...the right to a dissenting opinion is the foundation on which makes this country great and unique...Un-American in my opinion would be anyone willing to squash that right no matter how disagreeable another person's view...

patteeu
03-23-2003, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by VAChief
Michael,

What about someone like George McGovern who served with distinction and honor in WWII...he was on record as against this conflict, but supports the troops and their efforts currently to disarm Hussein...he did stick his neck on the line when it counted...does that mean his opinion is "Un-American?

His opinion mirrors my own to some degree...I would have preferred to seek other options, but I do support President Bush and the troops once the decision was made to go forth...the right to a dissenting opinion is the foundation on which makes this country great and unique...Un-American in my opinion would be anyone willing to squash that right no matter how disagreeable another person's view...

Don't try to have a rationale discussion with Mikey. He isn't equipped to participate.

Michael Michigan
03-23-2003, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by VAChief
Michael,

What about someone like George McGovern who served with distinction and honor in WWII...he was on record as against this conflict, but supports the troops and their efforts currently to disarm Hussein...he did stick his neck on the line when it counted...does that mean his opinion is "Un-American?

His opinion mirrors my own to some degree...I would have preferred to seek other options, but I do support President Bush and the troops once the decision was made to go forth...the right to a dissenting opinion is the foundation on which makes this country great and unique...Un-American in my opinion would be anyone willing to squash that right no matter how disagreeable another person's view...




I never called anyone un-American. Nor have I called for an end to protests. There are however many anti-Bush anti-American factions setting up the protests.



I do have a problem with the protestors taking away time from our police--the first responders against any terrorist attack, to baby-sit them when they can't obey the law.

Patty tried to bait me with his sophomoric good/bad American rhetoric.

He then was upset when I wouldn't bite.

I also would have wished for a different option, as no sane person ever wishes for war.

Once it was obvious that war was necessary--I backed both Bush and of course our soldiers.

My point was that those who "support the troops" but not the war are cop outs.


The troops job is to enforce our war strategy---by supporting them--you must support the war.

Michael Michigan
03-23-2003, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by patteeu


Don't try to have a rationale discussion with Mikey. He isn't equipped to participate.



Not allowing one to frame the debate is not irrational.


I could tell that once your sophomoric attempt failed you were upset.


I explained my position clearly--you just didn't like the explanation.


Now do your little head shake for me.

jAZ
03-23-2003, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Michael Michigan
The troops job is to enforce our war strategy

This is why you are wrong... It's their job, not their strategy. Good soldiers do what they are told. When they are told to do what some people believe is wrong, they are still doing their job well...

You CAN disagree with policy and still support the troops. IMO, you are embarassing yourself with this line logic. But its Amercia, and you have that right.

HC_Chief
03-23-2003, 03:19 PM
This poll's results are very close to most polls out there regarding the war & Bush.

Michael Michigan
03-23-2003, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by Justin


This is why you are wrong... It's their job, not their strategy. Good soldiers do what they are told. When they are told to do what some people believe is wrong, they are still doing their job well...

You CAN disagree with policy and still support the troops. IMO, you are embarassing yourself with this line logic. But its Amercia, and you have that right.


I didn't say it was their strategy. Did I? Please point out if I did and I will retract.

And I'm sure you don't agree with me. I understand that and expect nothing less.


I'm also certain it makes one "feel better" that they can say "sure I support the troops, just not the war."


I just don't believe that is possible. It's a cop out.


You disagree.

patteeu
03-23-2003, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by patteeu


Don't try to have a rationale discussion with Mikey. He isn't equipped to participate.

See. I told you. :rolleyes:

Michael Michigan
03-23-2003, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by patteeu


See. I told you. :rolleyes:


Quoting yourself now patty?


At least you found someone you can win a debate with.


;)

Frazod
03-23-2003, 03:52 PM
My random thoughts on the war to date:

1. Contrary to my earlier hopes, this won't go away quickly and quietly. It was naive of me (and anyone else who thought the same) to think that it would.

2. These Republican Guard f#ckers are now defending their home soil. It's easy for us to say that they should just surrender. But if it was America you were defending, would you surrender? Clearly these guys won't go down easily - especially the ones who know they'll pay a personal price for past atrocities once the dust settles. They've got nothing to loose by resisting.

3. I'm as pissed and outraged as the next guy regarding the POW fiasco - but this was pretty much inevitable. Did anyone really expect fair treatment of our POWs from Saddam? Did anyone expect RG goons who have been bombed relentlessly for days to give two shits about the Geneva convention? The answers should be "no" and "no." This isn't a gentlemen's disagreement - it's war against a souless enemy with it's back against the wall. Very bad things will happen to some of our troops while fighting them, and it's far from over. I find solace in the fact that they won't get their hands on very many of our guys, that the scum who are getting their rocks off torturing them will soon be very dead, and that for every man we're losing, they're losing hundreds.

4. I also expect the dirty tricks to intensify the closer our troops get to Baghdad. They really don't have much left other than fake surrenders, hiding among civilians and other tactics we loudly decry. Again, I can't imagine some RG goon who has watched the better part of his regiment get shredded by cruise missiles will lose much sleep over such things. I also fully expect them to break out the chemical weapons soon, and I'm rather surprised that they haven't done it yet.

5. Somebody needs to put a muzzle on these goddamn front line reporters AND the talking heads who overanalyze everything. The press is running amuck, as usual, but this is just out of control. The day our forces just experienced was just a regular old day of war - guys getting killed, POWs getting tortured, civilians getting blown up. The press is making it sound like the Bloody Road at Antietam. NEWSFLASH - THAT'S WHAT WAR IS. Compared to a typical day during WWII, for example, a day where any particular army experiences a couple of dozen deaths and a couple of hundred overall casualties would be viewed as damn near miraculous.

6. Time for somebody to drop one of those 2,000 lb. bombs on the Iraqi TV guys. That should have been done the first night, IMO.

7. I still think it'll all be over soon, but we're not going to come out of thise one without a bloody nose. These guys are desperate, defending their native soil, well entrenched, and many have nothing to lose. They won't go down quiety.

8. As for the traitorous f#ck in the 101st, every day he continues to breathe is an affront to this nation. He needs to be summarily whacked, ASAP.

:cuss:

Logical
03-23-2003, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Justin


This is a very weak attempt to marginalize any dissenting opinion... and it is a load of crap for many reasons. Not the least of which, is perfectly illustrated in my family.

My wife is a pacifist and against this war. But her only 2 brothers are serving in this war. To say that she can't object to this war and still support her brothers (and anyone else over there) is ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT.

Look I am sure your wife loves her brothers and does not want to see them harmed. That in no way indicates she supports their actions in fighting in this war. I sincerely doubt that she does if she is actually a pacifist. If she is both she is likely a hypocrite and that is about as simple as it gets.

stevieray
03-23-2003, 04:05 PM
I wish we'd stop taking others decisions to put their life on the line as a basis for objecting.

If you support the troops, you support the decision they've made. That's why it's called the ultimate sacrifice for your country. Yt here, it's ammo to basically just bash a President they don't "like".

One is selfless...The other is selfish as hell.

jAZ
03-23-2003, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by Logical
That in no way indicates she supports their actions in fighting in this war.

Supporting the people (troops) and supporting the action of our military (war) are two different things. A similar parallel can be found in the family of a criminal.

If a man goes to prison for robbery or assult or murder, people can support the person without supporting the act of robbery or murder.

jAZ
03-23-2003, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by stevieray
If you support the troops, you support the decision they've made.

Nope, those 2 things are not 1 and the same.

patteeu
03-23-2003, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Justin


Supporting the people (troops) and supporting the action of our military (war) are two different things. A similar parallel can be found in the family of a criminal.

If a man goes to prison for robbery or assult or murder, people can support the person without supporting the act of robbery or murder.

Not only that, but you can oppose the policy but support both the people and the war they are fighting. I'll make up a hypothetical to make my case.

Someone (I'll call him Mr. Antiwar) could oppose going to war with Iraq because he thinks that it is not in US interests. Maybe he fears that while our troops are committed in the Middle East, some other country might take advantage to pursue a military goal of their own (e.g. North Korea launches an offensive to reunite the Korean peninsula or China launches an offensive to retake Taiwan). Other than nuclear retaliation, we probably don't have enough juice to oppose either of those actions.

But given that the government has made the policy decision to commit the troops to Iraq, there is no reason why Mr. Antiwar can't fully support the troops and the mission objectives despite continuing to disagree with the policy decision. He might even think we are better off losing face by backing down and recalling our troops than to run the risks he perceives. In that case, he might continue to lobby his government (an American right, BTW) to withdraw even while our troops are in combat.

There would be nothing inconsistent in Mr. Antiwar wanting the troops and the US to be successful in the war despite the fact that he thinks the war is a bad idea in the first place. Of course, this might be too much nuance for some people to grasp.

KCWolfman
03-23-2003, 05:06 PM
I agree with MM - I honestly don't see how anyone can say, I support our soldiers but I don't support the war - it is the pentultimate in fencesitting (IMO).

You are saying, "the killing seems wrong to me, but I hope our boys kill better than anyone else on the planet".

I honestly have more respect for the open dissenters in SFO than I do for the fencesitters trying to milk the best situation from both sides.

KCWolfman
03-23-2003, 05:10 PM
If a man goes to prison for robbery or assult or murder, people can support the person without supporting the act of robbery or murder.
Justin - That is fencesitting.

I support the office of the President, I don't support what President Clinton did while in office.

The statement above is meaningless.

So what, your wife support the idea of soldiers but doesn't support their actions? I think everyone who lives in our country (with a very very small minute minority) supports a military. To state that you do is the same as stating you support democracy - it is a given and a wishy washy way to say "I think the war is immoral".

patteeu
03-23-2003, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by KCWolfman
I agree with MM - I honestly don't see how anyone can say, I support our soldiers but I don't support the war - it is the pentultimate in fencesitting (IMO).

You are saying, "the killing seems wrong to me, but I hope our boys kill better than anyone else on the planet".

I honestly have more respect for the open dissenters in SFO than I do for the fencesitters trying to milk the best situation from both sides.

Can you think that this war is a bad idea and still want what is best for the American boys and girls involved, and what is best for America? Sure you can.

I'm sure there are some people out there who say such things merely to cover their Anti-American asses. But not everyone fits into the same cookie cutter just because they utter the same slogan. (E.g. its not true that every white person who opposes affirmative action is a racist even though most white racists oppose affirmative action).

jAZ
03-23-2003, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by KCWolfman

Justin - That is fencesitting.

I support the office of the President, I don't support what President Clinton did while in office.

The statement above is meaningless.

So what, your wife support the idea of soldiers but doesn't support their actions? I think everyone who lives in our country (with a very very small minute minority) supports a military. To state that you do is the same as stating you support democracy - it is a given and a wishy washy way to say "I think the war is immoral".

The statement of support might not rise to the level that you would wish or define as meaningful support. That's your personal standard.

But its not binary. Just because YOU think someones support doesn't rise to a high enough level, it doesn't mean that the support doesn't exist. Or that those people are anti-american.

whoman69
03-23-2003, 07:55 PM
You don't have the Anti-Bush Pro War option. I think the war is necessary but that the President has failed to get backing from the rest of the world on what should be a no brainer. The President tried to put forth falsified information as proof of Saddam's non-appliance to the UN resolutions. He ticked off the rest of the world. And worst of all, he made the French feel important. The President was spoiling for this fight but made a lousy job of proving his case.

Logical
03-23-2003, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by Justin


Supporting the people (troops) and supporting the action of our military (war) are two different things. A similar parallel can be found in the family of a criminal.

If a man goes to prison for robbery or assult or murder, people can support the person without supporting the act of robbery or murder.

Put bluntly F*ck You and the horse you imigrate out on. Equating our soldiers with criminals is just so low and vile that I cannot express my rage towards you right now.

What an lame AZZ Motherf*cker you must be.:cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

jAZ
03-23-2003, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by Logical


Put bluntly F*ck You and the horse you imigrate out on. Equating our soldiers with criminals is just so low and vile that I cannot express my rage towards you right now.

What an lame AZZ Motherf*cker you must be.:cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

Rage on all you want, but either I am not making my point clear. or you are not taking the time to hear my point.

I know its a sophisticated analogy that you seem to have confused with an insult, but I really don't care if you understand.

If you don't like the analogy, that's fine...

4 members of my family are serving in this war... I certainly am not going to disrespect them or any other soldier.

Logical
03-23-2003, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by Justin


Rage on all you want, but either I am not making my point clear. or you are not taking the time to hear my point.

I know its a sophisticated analogy that you seem to have confused with an insult, but I really don't care if you understand.

If you don't like the analogy, that's fine...

4 members of my family are serving in this war... I certainly am not going to disrespect them or any other soldier.

Yeah right, your an azzhole and your self absorbed belief otherwise changes nothing.

patteeu
03-23-2003, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by Justin


Rage on all you want, but either I am not making my point clear. or you are not taking the time to hear my point.

I know its a sophisticated analogy that you seem to have confused with an insult, but I really don't care if you understand.

If you don't like the analogy, that's fine...

4 members of my family are serving in this war... I certainly am not going to disrespect them or any other soldier.

Justin,

I doubt that we agree on much politically, but I can see that your analogy was in no way intended to equate soldiers with criminals.

There's a lot of "my way or the highway" thinking going on around here these days. Don't let Logical's rants get you down.

Peace (er... I meant that as a friendly closing sentiment, not a lack of support for our troops or the war... hehe).

Logical
03-23-2003, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by patteeu


Justin,

I doubt that we agree on much politically, but I can see that your analogy was in no way intended to equate soldiers with criminals.

There's a lot of "my way or the highway" thinking going on around here these days. Don't let Logical's rants get you down.

Peace (er... I meant that as a friendly closing sentiment, not a lack of support for our troops or the war... hehe).

Just to be clear I do not think you will find me spouting my way or the highway with Frankie, Recount or others who have at least the decency to not directly insult our troops like Justin has lately.

He is simply a toad faced bug f*cker and nothing would make me happier that to be making his life miserable. Frankly I doubt he has the integrity to feel guilty about a thing that is spewed from that porous shell that is supposed to contain a brain. I resent your involvement in this matter but I will cut you some slack.

patteeu
03-23-2003, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by Logical


Just to be clear I do not think you will find me spouting my way or the highway with Frankie, Recount or others who have at least the decency to not directly insult our troops like Justin has lately.

He is simply a toad faced bug f*cker and nothing would make me happier that to be making his life miserable. Frankly I doubt he has the integrity to feel guilty about a thing that is spewed from that porous shell that is supposed to contain a brain. I resent your involvement in this matter but I will cut you some slack.

Thanks for cutting me some slack. I don't know if the two of you have a history or not, but I honestly don't see the same thing you apparently see in his post. (Even after rereading it in light of your descriptions). Your criticisms were pretty harsh so I just wanted to let Justin know that there was at least one other person who took his post as he intended it.

As for the "my way or the highway" comment. I admit that I haven't really heard that from you. There has been a lot of it around these parts lately though so in general I stand by the comment. Understandably, I suppose, emotions seem to be running on overdrive around this subject.

jAZ
03-23-2003, 10:13 PM
I don't know where this has come from either... but it ends here. This is between us and has been taken off line. By me anyway.

Logical
03-23-2003, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by patteeu


Thanks for cutting me some slack. I don't know if the two of you have a history or not, but I honestly don't see the same thing you apparently see in his post. (Even after rereading it in light of your descriptions). Your criticisms were pretty harsh so I just wanted to let Justin know that there was at least one other person who took his post as he intended it.

As for the "my way or the highway" comment. I admit that I haven't really heard that from you. There has been a lot of it around these parts lately though so in general I stand by the comment. Understandably, I suppose, emotions seem to be running on overdrive around this subject.

Not sure how you can be certain of his lack of negative intention but you have the right to believe what you want. Thanks for the acknowledgement on the my way or highway issue. Later.

patteeu
03-23-2003, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by Logical


Not sure how you can be certain of his lack of negative intention but you have the right to believe what you want. Thanks for the acknowledgement on the my way or highway issue. Later.

OK. Perhaps I should have said "stated intention." Cya.

Michael Michigan
03-23-2003, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by Justin


Supporting the people (troops) and supporting the action of our military (war) are two different things. A similar parallel can be found in the family of a criminal.

If a man goes to prison for robbery or assult or murder, people can support the person without supporting the act of robbery or murder.

No wonder logical is so pi$$ed.


Not only is it a poor analogy but the way you worded it is reprehensible.

Brock
03-23-2003, 10:46 PM
It is interesting that the first analogy that pops into his mind, apparently, when he thinks of a US soldier, is a criminal.

Michael Michigan
03-23-2003, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by Brock Landers
It is interesting that the first analogy that pops into his mind, apparently, when he thinks of a US soldier, is a criminal.

And even though he doesn't support the war--

he supports our crim...err troops.



:rolleyes:

KCinNY
03-23-2003, 10:56 PM
Well Iraqi TV is calling our troops "gangsters," so Justin is at least in line with them with his analogy.

Logical
03-25-2003, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by KCinNY
Well Iraqi TV is calling our troops "gangsters," so Justin is at least in line with them with his analogy.

Still pissed over this analogy of our troops to criminal and to find out Justin is in alliance with the Iraqi media just makes it that more annoying.

Phobia
03-25-2003, 12:56 AM
Moved by request due to petty ongoing dispute.

Sorry

Logical
03-25-2003, 02:15 AM
Originally posted by pHoBiA
Moved by request due to petty ongoing dispute.

Sorry

Phobia,

I do not see how this dispute can be classified as petty the guy said:

Supporting the people (troops) and supporting the action of our military (war) are two different things. A similar parallel can be found in the family of a criminal.

It is clear he was equating our troops to criminals with that statement. Both Michael Michigan and Brock were able to see it as well. If it had been only me I could see how you would classify it as petty.

Phobia
03-25-2003, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by Logical
If it had been only me I could see how you would classify it as petty.

;) Happy to see your sense of humor intact.

I think he's likely most upset over post #91, Jim.

go bowe
03-25-2003, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by patteeu


A lot of people thought that Vietnam was about self preservation too. You are probably too young to know, but people were really afraid of losing the global cold war to communism back in the day.

You get the benefit of hindsight with respect to Vietnam but act like it was obvious and our parents were all dumbf*cks. to the extent that any of them bought the arguments that justified our involvement in viet nam, they (including me, at least until after i had enlisted and got over there and began to understand what was really going on...) were "dumbf*cks"... worse yet, even after it was obvious to most young people and to many people of prnciple, such as mlk and muhamad ali and george mcgovern, most middle aged, middle class americans continued to be dumbf*cks... and i am old enough to know that without the benefit of hindsight... i was there... it seemed pretty obvious to me at the time, just as it seems pretty obvious now... jmo, of course...

patteeu
03-25-2003, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by go bo
to the extent that any of them bought the arguments that justified our involvement in viet nam, they (including me, at least until after i had enlisted and got over there and began to understand what was really going on...) were "dumbf*cks"... worse yet, even after it was obvious to most young people and to many people of prnciple, such as mlk and muhamad ali and george mcgovern, most middle aged, middle class americans continued to be dumbf*cks... and i am old enough to know that without the benefit of hindsight... i was there... it seemed pretty obvious to me at the time, just as it seems pretty obvious now... jmo, of course...

In your opinion Go Bo, what was wrong with our war in Vietnam other than the fact that we didn't win it and the fact that having lost it we still won the cold war?

go bowe
03-25-2003, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by patteeu


In your opinion Go Bo, what was wrong with our war in Vietnam other than the fact that we didn't win it and the fact that having lost it we still won the cold war? are you serious?

other than we shouldn't have ever been there in the first place?

supporting a dictatorial, oppressive. corrupt government that most americans would have fought against instead of for, given the chance... for openers...

killing men, women, children... because they were killing us... because we were killing them to support a government that was killing them...

being "led" by the greatest group of morons, idiots, glory hounds, and butchers ever assembled in the name of a "military" chain of commmand, whose primary mission was inflated body counts and a "good combat record" for the purposes of promotion in rank and the good of their military career in general, and who cared little, if at all, for the lives, let alone the "welfare" of their "men", most of whom were 19 year draftees who were there against their will, in a form of virtual involuntary servitude bordering on short term slavery...

i could go on and on...

i can't believe you even asked this question...

have you ever read any contemporary historical accounts, news accounts, war novels, seen any viet nam movies, any documentaries, ever talked to any viet nam vets?

good God, how could any sentient living being not know what was wrong with the viet nam war?????

you've got to be jerking my chain...

patteeu
03-25-2003, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by go bo
are you serious?

other than we shouldn't have ever been there in the first place?

supporting a dictatorial, oppressive. corrupt government that most americans would have fought against instead of for, given the chance... for openers...

killing men, women, children... because they were killing us... because we were killing them to support a government that was killing them...

being "led" by the greatest group of morons, idiots, glory hounds, and butchers ever assembled in the name of a "military" chain of commmand, whose primary mission was inflated body counts and a "good combat record" for the purposes of promotion in rank and the good of their military career in general, and who cared little, if at all, for the lives, let alone the "welfare" of their "men", most of whom were 19 year draftees who were there against their will, in a form of virtual involuntary servitude bordering on short term slavery...

i could go on and on...

i can't believe you even asked this question...

have you ever read any contemporary historical accounts, news accounts, war novels, seen any viet nam movies, any documentaries, ever talked to any viet nam vets?

good God, how could any sentient living being not know what was wrong with the viet nam war?????

you've got to be jerking my chain...

So you aren't going to give me a serious answer? In case you weren't aware of it, we have allied with seriously despicable characters in nearly every war we have ever fought abroad. Just using a couple of recent examples, we allied ourselves with cut-throat gangs called the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and we allied informally with a little-known (at the time) group called Al Qaeda in Kosovo. IMO, that's a weak argument against participating in a war.

Just to lay my cards on the table, I was against the Kosovo action and in favor of the Afghanistan action. The criteria I would use for American foreign policy would be American interests, not some carebear idealism based on the welfare of people who may or may not give a rats ass about what's best for our country.

I don't take your reaction personally though because it appears that this is an emotional issue for you.

go bowe
03-25-2003, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by patteeu


So you aren't going to give me a serious answer? In case you weren't aware of it, we have allied with seriously despicable characters in nearly every war we have ever fought abroad. Just using a couple of recent examples, we allied ourselves with cut-throat gangs called the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and we allied informally with a little-known (at the time) group called Al Qaeda in Kosovo. IMO, that's a weak argument against participating in a war.

Just to lay my cards on the table, I was against the Kosovo action and in favor of the Afghanistan action. The criteria I would use for American foreign policy would be American interests, not some carebear idealism based on the welfare of people who may or may not give a rats ass about what's best for our country.

I don't take your reaction personally though because it appears that this is an emotional issue for you. you're dayum tootin' it's an emotional issue for me, and about 500,00 other men & women that went through that meat grinder for no good reason... anerica's interests, my ass!

serious answer? man, i guess i had the wrong idea about you...

and, yeah, i'm very well "aware" of those, and many other examples of our despicable foreign misadventures over the years... to blithely pass them off as somehow ok in the name of our national interest is nothing short of morally bankrupt imho...

but no-one ever asked for my opinion, or the opinion of a few million other americans who stood up for their conscience and honr and fought against the war in viet nam regardless of the cost to them personally - like mlk, muhamed ali, george mcgovern and countless other not so famous people...

who we may have "allied" with is not the criteria by which i judge whether this great nation should have or should not have gotten involved in any particular military conflict... of course, iirc, the nation has never sought my approval or my consent before getting involved, but, iirc, you asked ME what i thought was wrong with the viet nam war and i gave you an answer that was entirely serious from my point of view... imo, you've got a lot of cheek to tell me that my answer, that you solicited, was not a "serious" answer...

if the cause is just, or the reason compelling, then i don't give a damn who we "ally" ourselves with in order to accomplish the mission, so long as we don't commit ourselves to anything beyond accomplishing the mission at hand...

but if the mission is to ally ourselves with a corrupt and tyrannical government solely because that government is an opponent of another government that we oppose, then i begin to question the wisdom of such an alliance (e.g., saudi arabia, in today's world) and if that alliance requires the expenditure of our national treasure and the blood of our young people, especially the blood of our young people who have been forced to go and die for the privelege of defending that corrupt and tyrannical government, then i am very, very opposed to that alliance (e.g., viet nam). all other considerations pale in comparison, unless there is an extremely COMPELLING reason to enter into that alliance ane expend our national treasure and our national blood...

so, mr serious answer, why don't you tell me just what was the COMPELLING reason for the united states to spend billions of dollars and over 50,000 lives and hundreds of thousands of wounded and over a million psychologically scarred (both veterans and the families of those who died, were wounded, and who returned all f*cked up in the head)? i'd like to hear your "serious" answer...

what exactly was the compelling reason for that massive expenditure over a ten year period? after all, you have the beneft of hindsight and no doubt, a great deal of conservative scholarship to draw upon... so, pray tell...

and i'm not taking it "personally".... but i am indeed very emotional about this subject... i lost a lot of friends to that damned war... some to enemy action, some to friendly fire, some to crippling physical wounds, some to crippling psychological wounds, some to drug addiction, some to alcoholism, some to the inability to control using violence to settle their problems, some to just not knowing how to live in the "real world" any more after seeing and doing what they had to do to survive for that one terrible, horrific year in country... and then i saw my family, my home town, and my country torn apart by the anti-war versus the government battles for five long years... 10 years all together of total hell... yeah, i'm a little emotional about the subject...

it's not an "academic" exercise for me... it's very personal.

so, what was the compelling reason for that national tragedy? what was there about "American foreign policy" or what "American interests" were so compelling that they justified the sacrifice of such an enormous number of unwilling young lives? if it didn't have anything to do with "some carebear idealism based on the welfare of people who may or may not give a rats ass about what's best for our country", and it surely didn't, then what did it have to do with?

give me your "serious answer", if you would be so kind, good sir...

patteeu
03-25-2003, 01:37 PM
Go Bo,

Let me start by saying that I'm sorry that you were so personally and negatively touched by the war in Vietnam (in terms of friends/relatives who were negatively affected by the war). I am also sorry for intentionally pushing a hot button for you that was perhaps a little hotter than I realized.

Now let me back up and put this strand of the thread in a little context. There has been a lot of sentiment expressed in this thread and elsewhere on this board suggesting that protest against this war is objectively anti-American or incompatible with supporting our troops/country or in some other way improper. (I don't want to quibble about whether "anti-American" is the perfect word for what I'm talking about, and I'd be glad to use a different characterization if it conveyed a similar meaning).

Brad_Caudel (in post #12) suggested that this is true for this specific war but wouldn't have been true for a "bad" war like Vietnam. (My word not his). This, of course, implies that Brad (and like minded people) are better judges of which wars may be protested by good people and which may not than are others. His stated reason for distinguishing this war from the war in Vietnam is that IHO this is a war for self-preservation and that one was not.

It occurred to me that we have the benefit of hindsight wrt Vietnam where we do not wrt Iraq Part II. In post #15, I suggested as much. In post #16, Brad replied and defended his position. In his post, he continued to use hindsight-based arguments (e.g. we never fought to win, we could have found other ways to outspend the USSR, and too many people died).

You also responded to my post #15. You suggested that everyone who didn't come to the same conclusion about that war as you did were in fact, dumbf*cks (using my word in your reply). However, in that reply (post #108), you didn't explain what was wrong with the thinking of those who supported the war as it was being fought (i.e. without the benefit of hindsight). You suggested that most of the people who supported the Vietnam war and who were opposed to the war protesters of the time were "most middle aged, middle class americans" and some others including yourself who had not "enlisted and got over there and began to understand what was really going on." That is a great description of nearly all of the people on this board who, today, argue that protesting this war is out-of-bounds.

So my response to you was what I thought was a simple, non-provocative question asking for more clarification on your response. I asked:

In your opinion Go Bo, what was wrong with our war in Vietnam other than the fact that we didn't win it and the fact that having lost it we still won the cold war?

Obviously, it came across as more provocative than I intended. I apologize for my inarticulate attempt.

My intention was to get your opinion of what the pro-war majority of that time should have seen that should have led them to conclude that the Vietnam conflict was a bad war for America. I wasn't clear, but I wanted you to set aside ALL hindsight-based justifications for anti-Vietnam war protests (e.g. we lost, it was unnecessary in our war against Soviet communism, it tore our nation apart, etc.) and stick to the types of observable criteria that pro-war people of that era could have used to come to the same conclusion that you and Brad have come to. I thought it would be interesting to compare those criteria to today's war where we don't have the benefit of hindsight yet.

I don't necessarily agree with you view on Vietnam, but I don't claim to be an expert on the subject either and having not served there, I can't possibly know what it was like to do so. I absolutely disagree with the idea that my father (who I consider a pretty clear thinking dude, go figure), Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and many of the other cold war hawks who supported the war in Vietnam were dumbf*cks just because they didn't agree with you at the time.

The "serious answer" comment, I now realize, was improper because it appears that my question was miscommunicated.

Having said all that, I stand by my belief that most of the popular opinion that Vietnam was a "bad" war is based on hindsight. I'm not talking about people who protested that war at the time (and perhaps you were one of them), but I am talking about nearly everyone who is too young to have been there (e.g. Brad).

My position is that it isn't always that easy to figure out which wars are good ones and which wars are bad ones at the time they are happening. Only time will tell how the unintended consequences of any given war will turn out. Only time will tell whether or not our government was lying to us about the war. We don't have the luxury of hindsight when judging the current war so IMHO we should cut the modern-day protesters some slack. We can disagree with them. We can counter-protest them. We can refuse to vote for politicians who we don't agree with on the subject. We can loudly disagree with them and try to convince them to think more like us. But we shouldn't use it as a litmus test on whether or not they have the best interests of America at heart. Obviously, some of them really do want to see America taken to its knees, but I'm convinced that that isn't the case for most of them. By way of analogy, most white racists oppose affirmative action, but it doesn't mean that you are a white racist just because you oppose affirmative action.

Peace.

:Peace:

ndbbm
03-25-2003, 02:21 PM
Attaboy Bush! I'm for him and the war.

Boozer
03-25-2003, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by patteeu


My intention was to get your opinion of what the pro-war majority of that time should have seen that should have led them to conclude that the Vietnam conflict was a bad war for America. I wasn't clear, but I wanted you to set aside ALL hindsight-based justifications for anti-Vietnam war protests (e.g. we lost, it was unnecessary in our war against Soviet communism, it tore our nation apart, etc.) and stick to the types of observable criteria that pro-war people of that era could have used to come to the same conclusion that you and Brad have come to. I thought it would be interesting to compare those criteria to today's war where we don't have the benefit of hindsight yet.

I don't necessarily agree with you view on Vietnam, but I don't claim to be an expert on the subject either and having not served there, I can't possibly know what it was like to do so. I absolutely disagree with the idea that my father (who I consider a pretty clear thinking dude, go figure), Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and many of the other cold war hawks who supported the war in Vietnam were dumbf*cks just because they didn't agree with you at the time.


Well, I don't want to answer for go bo, but many in the State Department were opposed to involvement/escalation in Vietnam, but Kennedy/Johnson downplayed their input, instead opting for analysis from the Pentagon (which, if you read the memos, have some pretty funny French bashing in them). In fact, the "Father of Containment," George Kennan, spoke before a Senate sub-committee (I don't know what year, but early in the conflict, possibly even Kennedy administration), claiming that containment was not applicable to Vietnam. Not the right place, not the right kind of war, etc. However, anti-communist sentiment prevailed, egged on by hawks in American society, and the United States got more involved in Vietnam. I'm hesitant to draw parallels between Vietnam and Iraq, and I hope none emerge.

patteeu
03-25-2003, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by AZFan


Well, I don't want to answer for go bo, but many in the State Department were opposed to involvement/escalation in Vietnam, but Kennedy/Johnson downplayed their input, instead opting for analysis from the Pentagon (which, if you read the memos, have some pretty funny French bashing in them). In fact, the "Father of Containment," George Kennan, spoke before a Senate sub-committee (I don't know what year, but early in the conflict, possibly even Kennedy administration), claiming that containment was not applicable to Vietnam. Not the right place, not the right kind of war, etc. However, anti-communist sentiment prevailed, egged on by hawks in American society, and the United States got more involved in Vietnam. I'm hesitant to draw parallels between Vietnam and Iraq, and I hope none emerge.

I appreciate your input AZFan, but I'm not really making an argument for or against the Vietnam war. The point of bringing it up to start with is that for almost every war, there are groups of people in both the pro-war and the anti-war camps who have the best interests of the US in mind. With the benefit of hindsight we have a chance of being able to judge which group was right. Without the benefit of hindsight it is very difficult to do so.

*edit* In addition, I would bet my life that there are people in both the Department of Defense and the Department of State who think the current war is not in the best interest of our country, just as there are, no doubt, groups in both organizations who believe it is. Of course, the stickier issue and the one that is more on point is whether or not the opponents of war outside the government should be able to publicly protest without being branded as unpatriotic. */edit*

RNR
03-27-2003, 07:31 AM
ROFL I post a poll and state I do not want a debate, the thread ends up on the petty board for disputes! that is too funny!

patteeu
03-27-2003, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by RedNeckRaider
ROFL I post a poll and state I do not want a debate, the thread ends up on the petty board for disputes! that is too funny!

TROUBLEMAKER! :grr:

:D :D j/k

go bowe
03-27-2003, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by patteeu
Go Bo,

Let me start by saying that I'm sorry that you were so personally and negatively touched by the war in Vietnam (in terms of friends/relatives who were negatively affected by the war). I am also sorry for intentionally pushing a hot button for you that was perhaps a little hotter than I realized.

Now let me back up and put this strand of the thread in a little context. There has been a lot of sentiment expressed in this thread and elsewhere on this board suggesting that protest against this war is objectively anti-American or incompatible with supporting our troops/country or in some other way improper. (I don't want to quibble about whether "anti-American" is the perfect word for what I'm talking about, and I'd be glad to use a different characterization if it conveyed a similar meaning).

Brad_Caudel (in post #12) suggested that this is true for this specific war but wouldn't have been true for a "bad" war like Vietnam. (My word not his). This, of course, implies that Brad (and like minded people) are better judges of which wars may be protested by good people and which may not than are others. His stated reason for distinguishing this war from the war in Vietnam is that IHO this is a war for self-preservation and that one was not.

It occurred to me that we have the benefit of hindsight wrt Vietnam where we do not wrt Iraq Part II. In post #15, I suggested as much. In post #16, Brad replied and defended his position. In his post, he continued to use hindsight-based arguments (e.g. we never fought to win, we could have found other ways to outspend the USSR, and too many people died).

You also responded to my post #15. You suggested that everyone who didn't come to the same conclusion about that war as you did were in fact, dumbf*cks (using my word in your reply). However, in that reply (post #108), you didn't explain what was wrong with the thinking of those who supported the war as it was being fought (i.e. without the benefit of hindsight). You suggested that most of the people who supported the Vietnam war and who were opposed to the war protesters of the time were "most middle aged, middle class americans" and some others including yourself who had not "enlisted and got over there and began to understand what was really going on." That is a great description of nearly all of the people on this board who, today, argue that protesting this war is out-of-bounds.

So my response to you was what I thought was a simple, non-provocative question asking for more clarification on your response. I asked:



Obviously, it came across as more provocative than I intended. I apologize for my inarticulate attempt.

My intention was to get your opinion of what the pro-war majority of that time should have seen that should have led them to conclude that the Vietnam conflict was a bad war for America. I wasn't clear, but I wanted you to set aside ALL hindsight-based justifications for anti-Vietnam war protests (e.g. we lost, it was unnecessary in our war against Soviet communism, it tore our nation apart, etc.) and stick to the types of observable criteria that pro-war people of that era could have used to come to the same conclusion that you and Brad have come to. I thought it would be interesting to compare those criteria to today's war where we don't have the benefit of hindsight yet.

I don't necessarily agree with you view on Vietnam, but I don't claim to be an expert on the subject either and having not served there, I can't possibly know what it was like to do so. I absolutely disagree with the idea that my father (who I consider a pretty clear thinking dude, go figure), Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and many of the other cold war hawks who supported the war in Vietnam were dumbf*cks just because they didn't agree with you at the time.

The "serious answer" comment, I now realize, was improper because it appears that my question was miscommunicated.

Having said all that, I stand by my belief that most of the popular opinion that Vietnam was a "bad" war is based on hindsight. I'm not talking about people who protested that war at the time (and perhaps you were one of them), but I am talking about nearly everyone who is too young to have been there (e.g. Brad).

My position is that it isn't always that easy to figure out which wars are good ones and which wars are bad ones at the time they are happening. Only time will tell how the unintended consequences of any given war will turn out. Only time will tell whether or not our government was lying to us about the war. We don't have the luxury of hindsight when judging the current war so IMHO we should cut the modern-day protesters some slack. We can disagree with them. We can counter-protest them. We can refuse to vote for politicians who we don't agree with on the subject. We can loudly disagree with them and try to convince them to think more like us. But we shouldn't use it as a litmus test on whether or not they have the best interests of America at heart. Obviously, some of them really do want to see America taken to its knees, but I'm convinced that that isn't the case for most of them. By way of analogy, most white racists oppose affirmative action, but it doesn't mean that you are a white racist just because you oppose affirmative action.

Peace.

:Peace: sorry for the delay, i've been away & just saw this... haven't really thought about it yet, but have a few preliminary comments...

i did enlist, thinking i was going to do my bit to fight communism, save america, etc. i was a regular john wayne junior from michigan... but i was a dumbf@ck! once i saw what was really going on, i realized what a dumbf@ck i was and was against the war from then on...

i don't know what the "silent majority" should have seen or could have seen at the time to know that the viet nam war was wrong... it took years of having their sons die or come home mangled in body and spirit before middle america began to understand that something was horribly wrong with that war... years of protests and riots, years of blood and sacrifice in the war and in the streets of america... it wasn't any intellectual understanding, it was a visceral knowledge that was slow and very painful, like a breech delivery without anesthesia or even with a midwife... just a woman all alone screaming in the dark, frightened and angry and wondering if the child will be born dead or alive or if she will even live to see which it will be... it was a very difficult time... it can't be put into words... it was that bad...

i don't agree with the severe bashing of those who oppose the war in iraq, although i admit that i find their disagreement highly offensive and objectionable (and recognize the irony, given my own history of opposing the viet nam war once i returned to "the world")... i feel strongly that the right of free speech is precious and should be respected, no matter how odious and maddening its exercise may be, and that free speech is never "un-American", by definition.

however, that doesn't mean that i don't have the right to criticize, in the most severe terms, the content of anyone else's speech, so long as i don't deny the right of a person to speak his or her mind, and so long as i don't suggest that they should leave the country - to me, that is too much. otoh, i have no problem with what logical has done, for example... i happen to agree wholeheartedly with his comments regarding justin's statements and stated positions, particularly the supposed innocent "sophisticated analogy" equating soldiers to murderers... reminds of the good old days when we returned home from viet nam... why doesn't he just go ahead and throw in "baby rapers", too?

i don't buy the "sophisticated analogy" crap... it looks like, smells like, sounds like equating soldiers with murderers... gee, it probably is equating soldiers with murderers...

that boy is right up there with dingleberry denber chweese in my book now, until i see some evidence that i was wrong in my estimation... not that he should care about my estimation of him, of course...

returning to the general tenor of your point, i have posted elsewhere about how i went to bat for a high school friend who applied for a conscientious objector draft deferment during the viet nam war, and he got it. he was one of the bravest men i ever knew. generally, a true pacificist is a very brave person, look at ghandi, mlk, and others for example... it takes courage to accept violence and not strike back, lot's of courage, more courage than i ever had...

and i am appalled at the mob mentality that seems to grip the board lately from time to time... patriotism is fine, but intolerance and personal attacks have been elevated to a virtual art form around here... sometimes it is deserved, of course (e.g., the soldiers as criminals crap; also, any suggestion that removing saddam is not justified or is somehow wrong), but it goes too far when it is couched in terms of being "unAmerican" or being a basis for forced expatriation... stfu and the like is fine, even traditional, but saying it is "wrong", well that's ok too, but unAmerican? not hardly; that's actually as American as it gets... try protesting just about anywhere else and see what happens...

and, fwiw, i really don't doubt that the anti-war types, for the most part, have the best interests of America at heart (even though they may not be correct as to what the best interests of America really are)... even denise, and recount... unlike nearly everyone else, i honestly believe that denise and recount and frankie and the others on this board are sincere and genuine in their beliefs, however misguided the rest of us may believe them to be, and it saddens me to see them abused so badly, even though i join in the abuse at times... now, some of the others make the occasional statement that is so outlandish that i cannot restrain myself and i also have to throw my considerable weight into the fray to add to the punishment (like this soldier = criminal thing... talk about pushing my HOT BUTTONS!!!).

in conclusion, imo, no war is a "good war" and there will always be legitmate reasons to support every war and equally good reasons to oppose those same wars, at the time of the war and thereafter... there are no absolutes in life, or in war...

peace be unto you, brother [even tho you really piss me off sometimes... but that's the "American" way, isn't it?]

jAZ
04-01-2003, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by Logical
Nope I never forget and your indecent gesture will be known to all by the time I am through. Ask Denise if you doubt me. You could have backed down said you did not mean it and changed that post. Instead you played the Chickensh!t and ran like a little girl to have the thread moved to the Petty Board Disputes section. I vowed from the moment you did that, that I was not going to let this drop and you would pay the price for your cowardice.

I am just making good on that vow. It does not get any more logical than that Justin.

I requested it be moved to petty board disputes because you were railing against not just me, but my family all over this board. I tried to be respectful to the community at-large and take it off line, but you were having none of that – “The Logical Show” can’t be witnessed offline. You are doing your best to draw attention to yourself. Logical is a man of conviction! Don't piss off Logical! ASK ANYONE!

Complaining about me is one thing, but you went shallow and outside the board. It had become a petty board dispute. If it hadn't, my request would have been rejected. Its not like Phob is much of a thread-nazi.

I told you that your interpretation of my statement ("equating soldiers to criminals" in some evil, anti-american sorta way) was not what I meant, but again, you were having none of that! No, this is logical! A man on a mission! Don't mess with Logical! He's a bad-mofo! ASK ANYONE!

Your conversation with patteeu pretty much sums it up...
Originally posted by patteeu
Justin, I doubt that we agree on much politically, but I can see that your analogy was in no way intended to equate soldiers with criminals.
Originally posted by patteeu
I don't know if the two of you have a history or not, but I honestly don't see the same thing you apparently see in his post. (Even after rereading it in light of your descriptions). Your criticisms were pretty harsh so I just wanted to let Justin know that there was at least one other person who took his post as he intended it.

Originally posted by Logical
Not sure how you can be certain of his lack of negative intention but you have the right to believe what you want.

No, the obvious answer is that Justin hates the troops over there. And thinks that they are criminals. Yeah, that's it! Because if that weren't the case (egads!) then Logical woudn't have a quest, and what is life without a quest?

Never mind the fact that it would be foolish to think such a thing because...
Originally posted by Justin
4 members of my family are serving in this war... I certainly am not going to disrespect them or any other soldier.

You can carry on with your self-obsessed, "i'm on a campaign of truth, justice and the adolescent way" all you want. It seems to give your life some purpose. And for that reason alone, I'm all for it. Everyone's gotta have something.

I do find it funny that you started out upset with what you thought I said. But now, your big issue is that I am a coward and running away from the truth. Yet, you seem to be afraid to post my entire comment in your sig line. It's the little things that amuse me.

I don't dare dream that you will listen or change any of your behavior. I do request that you keep the insults directed at me. And keep them away from my wife and family. They aren't part of this community and as such, your insults toward them aren't acceptable.

banyon
06-25-2006, 06:26 PM
I'm not sure where this thread will go if I bump it, but a mod can hopefully move it to DC.

It's a pretty interesting game of musical chairs. Logical is rabidly pro-war, patteeu looks like an extremely rational moderate, and jAZ, well is about the same. The weird thing is how patteeu has to defend jAZ from Logical.

I voted no, but hindsight is 20/20 of course. ;)

|Zach|
06-25-2006, 06:35 PM
What question?

The good/bad American crap?

Brock kind of stole my thunder, but I'll repeat it.

s l o w l y


You either support the defending of our Country or you don't.


You either support freedom or you don't.


There is no middle "I support the troops" but not their mission to defend liberty and freedom of America line of crap.


You can't have it both ways.


If you believe there are not millions of anti-Americans within our borders your partisanship is blinding you.


I'll let you make the call on who is a 'good' or 'bad' American your definitions are not black and white enough for my taste.


--too many shades of gray.
ROFL

jAZ
06-25-2006, 07:18 PM
I'm not sure where this thread will go if I bump it, but a mod can hopefully move it to DC.

It's a pretty interesting game of musical chairs. Logical is rabidly pro-war, patteeu looks like an extremely rational moderate, and jAZ, well is about the same. The weird thing is how patteeu has to defend jAZ from Logical.

I voted no, but hindsight is 20/20 of course. ;)
I'm going to be the first here to defend Logical as a man who has repeated told me that he regrets this incident.

I think it needs to be made clear. He's been very stand up about it.

jAZ
06-25-2006, 07:20 PM
ROFL
He disappeared in a flash. Now we know why.

|Zach|
06-25-2006, 07:23 PM
He disappeared in a flash. Now we know why.
Guy was a joke.

ChiefaRoo
06-25-2006, 07:32 PM
War sucks but now that we're there we have to win by defeating the insurgency and getting a relatively stable govt. in place. Not only is it the right thing to do for selfish national reasons it's what the honorable men and women who have died would want us to do.

memyselfI
06-26-2006, 06:52 AM
I found this poll in a search awhile ago and ALMOST reposted it but thought it might surface if I waited. ROFL

banyon
06-26-2006, 07:48 AM
He disappeared in a flash. Now we know why.

I think I would've had similar issues with him that patteeu did in this thread.

Logical
06-26-2006, 08:37 AM
This thread makes me wonder if they are working to restore some of the old archives. I had been unable to find anything between 2002 and 2004 for the longest time.

htismaqe
06-26-2006, 08:49 AM
He disappeared in a flash. Now we know why.

Trust me, he wasn't running away from your superior intellect.

He got a promotion that took him away fromt he board permanently.

htismaqe
06-26-2006, 08:51 AM
Although he has been back recently.

mlyonsd
06-26-2006, 08:51 AM
Trust me, he wasn't running away from your superior intellect.

He got a promotion that took him away fromt he board permanently.

Is his real name Tony Snow?

htismaqe
06-26-2006, 08:55 AM
Is his real name Tony Snow?

ROFL

IIRC, he was getting more and more involved with TV broadcasting and it was taking up all of his time.

memyselfI
06-26-2006, 09:51 AM
Trust me, he wasn't running away from your superior intellect.

He got a promotion that took him away fromt he board permanently.


Where and to whom do we send a thank you note. :p

Boyceofsummer
06-26-2006, 10:41 AM
but, WE GOT THE **** OUT!

Let's face it. The majority in this country love war are warmongers and will support the men and women dying from a safe comfortable distance. When Israel starts their next major military offensive many here will begin to scream that the USA should "kick some ass" too. Hell, let's just grab a country at random and wail on em cause were frustrated. The cycle never ends. We never learn from our mistakes. I'm un-American.


HEARD IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

chagrin
06-26-2006, 10:47 AM
but, WE GOT THE **** OUT!

Let's face it. The majority in this country love war are warmongers and will support the men and women dying from a safe comfortable distance. When Israel starts their next major military offensive many here will begin to scream that the USA should "kick some ass" too. Hell, let's just grab a country at random and wail on em cause were frustrated.

Yeah, and too bad you will never have the nuts to go to one of those lovely countries to speak your opinion so openly. You will sit here and "voice" your "concern" over the internet instead of going out there and doing something about it. Oh yeah, that's right HERE you have the freedom to do such things, don't you dipshit!

alanm
06-26-2006, 10:56 AM
Yeah, and too bad you will never have the nuts to go to one of those lovely countries to speak your opinion so openly. You will sit here and "voice" your "concern" over the internet instead of going out there and doing something about it. Oh yeah, that's right HERE you have the freedom to do such things, don't you dipshit!
You're right BOS may be a dipshit. But I'll defend his right to the death to be a dipshit. :)

Boyceofsummer
06-26-2006, 03:53 PM
Yeah, and too bad you will never have the nuts to go to one of those lovely countries to speak your opinion so openly. You will sit here and "voice" your "concern" over the internet instead of going out there and doing something about it. Oh yeah, that's right HERE you have the freedom to do such things, don't you dipshit!

No one on this thread was speaking to any other country. Your rant got the best of you, I guess. I am a legal American citizen. I can and will speak my mind regardless of who it might insult. I will never blindly follow the self appointed patriots. That is always a recipe for disaster.

jiveturkey
06-26-2006, 04:05 PM
Old thread bumps are fun.

Mr. Kotter
06-26-2006, 09:43 PM
Guy was a joke.
Personally, I think that's a bit harsh. MM was a quality poster.

I have more issues with those who.....are the ones who rarely post anything above 20-30 words (usually much less), but pretend to be above the fray or otherwise too busy, or too enlightened or tolerant, to really comment in a substantive way on the posts that they seem so offended or have a disagreement with.

Their posts are often only smilies, or completely smart ass remarks. Know any posters like that?

jAZ
06-26-2006, 10:03 PM
Trust me, he wasn't running away from your superior intellect.

He got a promotion that took him away fromt he board permanently.
They don't have internet where he was promoted?

jAZ
06-26-2006, 10:04 PM
I have more issues with those who.....pretend to be above the fray or otherwise too busy, or too enlightened or tolerant, to really comment in a substantive way on the posts that they seem so offended or have a disagreement with.
Yeah, and those who pretend to be above posting in the DC from time to time.

Mr. Kotter
06-26-2006, 10:08 PM
Yeah, and those who pretend to be above posting in the DC from time to time.
I know what you mean....except the I find with the rabid partisan zealotry of a couple of posters here that, part time, is all I can really stomach. Although, I must say the recent influx of "new blood" (albeit, pretty minimal) has revived my interest level....a bit.

Training camp and the pending season might divert my real attention back to the Lounge more, though....

They don't have internet where he was promoted?

I suspect if I ever get a real job, my CP time....especially my DC Forum time, will be reduced tremendously. I just don't know whether I'll ever get a "real job." I mean, afterall....I'm just a teacher.

|Zach|
06-26-2006, 10:21 PM
Personally, I think that's a bit harsh. MM was a quality poster.

I have more issues with those who.....are the ones who rarely post anything above 20-30 words (usually much less), but pretend to be above the fray or otherwise too busy, or too enlightened or tolerant, to really comment in a substantive way on the posts that they seem so offended or have a disagreement with.

Their posts are often only smilies, or completely smart ass remarks. Know any posters like that?
From the guy that can't even own his own opinions.

"According to some people..." ROFL ROFL

Logical
06-26-2006, 11:34 PM
I know what you mean....except the I find with the rabid partisan zealotry of a couple of posters here that, part time, is all I can really stomach. Although, I must say the recent influx of "new blood" (albeit, pretty minimal) has revived my interest level....a bit.

Training camp and the pending season might divert my real attention back to the Lounge more, though....



I suspect if I ever get a real job, my CP time....especially my DC Forum time, will be reduced tremendously. I just don't know whether I'll ever get a "real job." I mean, afterall....I'm just a teacher.

Do all teachers feel this urge to hold pity paries?

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 04:45 AM
They don't have internet where he was promoted?

Obviously they do, as he's browsed a few times since then. However, some jobs down allow people the time to post. I'm sure that's not something you understand...

Mr. Kotter
06-27-2006, 06:58 AM
Do all teachers feel this urge to hold pity paries?Wake-up, Jim. It was TIC. Adjust your sarcasm meter. Most of us enjoy the flexibility and freedom to work as we please, that education sometimes affords us.

It's one of the few, if not only, benefits. ;)

From the guy that can't even own his own opinions.

"According to some people..." ROFL ROFL
From a guy who, apparently, can't distinguish between a personal opinion, and speaking in the abstract in order to engage in hypothetical discussion.

I'll up you one smiley you too, Zach....ROFLROFLROFL

|Zach|
06-27-2006, 10:18 AM
From a guy who, apparently, can't distinguish between a personal opinion, and speaking in the abstract in order to engage in hypothetical discussion.

I'll up you one smiley you too, Zach....ROFLROFLROFL
Being able to distinguish something like that is quite easy.

Someone as transparent as you can't pull it off without people knowing what is going on though.

go bowe
06-27-2006, 01:45 PM
Personally, I think that's a bit harsh. MM was a quality poster.

I have more issues with those who.....are the ones who rarely post anything above 20-30 words (usually much less), but pretend to be above the fray or otherwise too busy, or too enlightened or tolerant, to really comment in a substantive way on the posts that they seem so offended or have a disagreement with.

Their posts are often only smilies, or completely smart ass remarks. Know any posters like that?yeah, me... :p :p :p

BIG_DADDY
06-27-2006, 02:09 PM
I wasn't for Bush or the war but understand the investment we have there now.

Mr. Kotter
06-27-2006, 04:07 PM
Being able to distinguish something like that is quite easy.

Someone as transparent as you can't pull it off without people knowing what is going on though.Ah, I see. You fancy yourself as clairvoyant.

Sorry, I hadn't been informed you were the Planet's own Miss Cleo. I had thought that was Justin. We should have been notified as that talent can be quite dangerous, you know. ;)

Logical
06-27-2006, 06:24 PM
Wake-up, Jim. It was TIC. Adjust your sarcasm meter. Most of us enjoy the flexibility and freedom to work as we please, that education sometimes affords us.

It's one of the few, if not only, benefits. ;)

...

Sorry but when I read that, it immediately brought Pam flashbacks to mind. Sometimes it is hard to read sarcasm in a post if it is not transparent.

RNR
11-22-2006, 07:54 AM
Bump I thought it would be interesting to see where everyone stands now.

jAZ
11-22-2006, 07:56 AM
Bump I thought it would be interesting to see where everyone stands now.
According to the "*" in the poll, I voted "on the fence".

RNR
11-22-2006, 07:58 AM
According to the "*" in the poll, I voted "on the fence".
Are you still on the fence?

patteeu
11-22-2006, 08:02 AM
I'm still where I was. Pro Bush, Pro War. My allegiance to the latter is stronger than that to the former. If Bush decides to cut and run, I'll be shifting to the Gaz option as a stand-in for Anti Bush, Pro War.

jAZ
11-22-2006, 08:04 AM
Are you still on the fence?
I fell off the fence in the first days when the looting was taking place right after our march to Bagdad. I remember arguing with Phobia about how pissed I was that we seemed to go into this war with far, far too few troops.

From that day forward, it's been obvious that this administration failed. Even then, I was assuming that there would be SOME chem/bio weapons stockpiled.

Duck Dog
11-22-2006, 08:15 AM
I fell off the fence in the first days when the looting was taking place right after our march to Bagdad. I remember arguing with Phobia about how pissed I was that we seemed to go into this war with far, far too few troops.

From that day forward, it's been obvious that this administration failed. Even then, I was assuming that there would be SOME chem/bio weapons stockpiled.


Wow, Bush sure gets blamed a lot for looting. :rolleyes:

jAZ
11-22-2006, 08:34 AM
Wow, Bush sure gets blamed a lot for looting. :rolleyes:
???

RNR
11-22-2006, 08:45 AM
I am the very proud father of a Airborne Ranger over there. Where I stand now is lets man up and get busy fighting or get busy getting the hell out of there.

Logical
11-22-2006, 10:50 AM
My vote of the time still applies.

But now it would be

Anti-Bush Anti-occupation we need a new poll.

RNR
11-22-2006, 10:54 AM
My vote of the time still applies.

But now it would be

Anti-Bush Anti-occupation we need a new poll.
I thought about doing one as I would be shocked if the rusults were still the same. I was just too lazy.

BucEyedPea
11-22-2006, 01:54 PM
Which war? I presume Iraq? I'll use that one.

Against Iraq invasion at the start but was neither pro or anti-Bush. Just not crazy about him...just better than Gore.

I am now pretty antiBush however.
Voted for him 2000.
Voted 3rd party 2004.
Voted Democrat in 2006 and I'm a Republican.

mlyonsd
11-22-2006, 08:35 PM
I am the very proud father of a Airborne Ranger over there. Where I stand now is lets man up and get busy fighting or get busy getting the hell out of there.

Please tell your Ranger there are those of us that are in awe of his courage and deeply appreciate his service.

Logical
11-22-2006, 09:54 PM
Please tell your Ranger there are those of us that are in awe of his courage and deeply appreciate his service.

I definitely agree with this, well said.

memyselfI
11-23-2006, 09:05 AM
This is one poll that the respondents that should have been public. We'd be able to see how many of those hundred are still here regularly defending the war. I'd venture it is less than 10%.

chiefs4me
11-23-2006, 08:52 PM
I wasn't for Bush or the war but understand the investment we have there now.



this is my answer also....and I will add that I have family over there now, so let's get it done and get home.....:(