# Not supporting the war BUT supporting our troops



## ProudDem (Sep 22, 2005)

Everytime I see pictures of anti-war protestors, I see those who support the war holding signs that say, "Support Our Troops."  

Can someone please explain to me why people assume that just because 
someone does not support the war that it means that person also does not 
support the troops?  I just don't get it. 

I do not support this war.  I do, however, fully support our 
troops.  Don't anybody tell me otherwise, as I work for an agency that 
assists veterans, so my daily job is indicative of my unwavering support 
for our troops (which job I have been in for almost 10 years).  I agonize over the constant deaths of our troops and the constant maiming of our troops.  I would like them to come home soon so that more of them aren't getting killed and maimed.  

Everytime I see anti-war protestors, they are begging to bring our soldiers back.  Why isn't that indicative of caring about our troops?


----------



## dmp (Sep 22, 2005)

I suppose it's possible to support troops w/o supporting what they are doing...but it just doesn't make any sense. 

What good is your (broad statement, not you personally) support of 'the troops' if you rally against EVERYTHING they are doing?  Makes one's support worthless.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 22, 2005)

Here's the thing, Prouddem, when you don't support what they're fighting for, the reasoning behind it, you 're saying that in your mind they're dying for no good reason. That's offensive, whether you intend it to be or not. Here people are laying down their lives to make future generations of america safer, and you think it's for no good reason.


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

I guess cons will never have this problem because they've never not supported a war, well, except for WWII.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> I guess cons will never have this problem because they've never not supported a war, well, except for WWII.



Guess away!  I choose door #2.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> I guess cons will never have this problem because they've never not supported a war, well, except for WWII.



In what way do you think "cons" didn't support WWII?  I think you are delusional here.  Can you support this with any evidence?


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Sep 22, 2005)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Here's the thing, Prouddem, when you don't support what they're fighting for, the reasoning behind it, you 're saying that in your mind they're dying for no good reason. That's offensive, whether you intend it to be or not. Here people are laying down their lives to make future generations of america safer, and you think it's for no good reason.



Serving the country is honorable, but you don't get to pick where you serve. I believe our soldiers enlist to make our country, and the future of our country, safer. But it is possible to support the idea of making our country safer while questioning whether or not that's happening. If it's not happening, it's not the soldier's fault. They're following orders.

A blind man might be able to hammer nails better than anyone alive, but if you put a piece of wood with no nails in front of him, he's not going to have much success.

Soldiers have no control over where they go, other than whether or not they enlist. If you insist that supporting the troops means blindly supporting ANY military involvement this country could undertake, I think it sets a dangerous precedent.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 22, 2005)

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> In what way do you think "cons" didn't support WWII?  I think you are delusional here.  Can you support this with any evidence?



I think he's assuming that when a Democrat (God forbid) went to war that all the Republicans did what the Dems are doing now.  However, when America went to war that time, they went united.  EVERYONE was behind the war.  Those who weren't were seen as traitors.

Also, this constant whine of "support the troops by bringing them home."  Bringing the troops home in defeat is worse than getting them killed in the first place.  Just ask a Vietnam Vet.  If you truly want what's best for the troops, support their mission so we can FINISH, then bring them home in triumph.  It's one thing to oppose starting the war.  It's another thing entirely to support us losing the war after we're in too deep to just back out.  How do you think Normandy vets would feel if we'd taken the beach, then pulled out?  They'd be pissed off, that's how they'd feel.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 22, 2005)

Hobbit said:
			
		

> I think he's assuming that when a Democrat (God forbid) went to war that all the Republicans did what the Dems are doing now.  However, when America went to war that time, they went united.  EVERYONE was behind the war.  Those who weren't were seen as traitors.



Sedition law comes into play when war is Declared.  It is one of the reasons that stopping short of a war declaration was a mistake IMO.



> Also, this constant whine of "support the troops by bringing them home."  Bringing the troops home in defeat is worse than getting them killed in the first place.  Just ask a Vietnam Vet.  If you truly want what's best for the troops, support their mission so we can FINISH, then bring them home in triumph.  It's one thing to oppose starting the war.  It's another thing entirely to support us losing the war after we're in too deep to just back out.  How do you think Normandy vets would feel if we'd taken the beach, then pulled out?  They'd be pissed off, that's how they'd feel.



I think it is rather like saying, "I support the Broncos (or insert favorite team here), but I hope they lose this one."


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 22, 2005)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Here's the thing, Prouddem, when you don't support what they're fighting for, the reasoning behind it, you 're saying that in your mind they're dying for no good reason. That's offensive, whether you intend it to be or not. Here people are laying down their lives to make future generations of america safer, and you think it's for no good reason.



I think Taurus did a good job of addressing this.  I have a friend from college who is in the Marine Corps.  He is going to Iraq because he _asked _ to go.  However, he told me that he does not support the war, but he is a soldier in the military and has promised to serve our country.   

I bet some soldiers feel the way you express above and some do not take it personally when people oppose the war.  Should people shut their mouths about how they feel because they are worried what kind of effect this will have on our soldiers?  My intent is not to disrespect our soldiers; however, I can see how some would take my opposition to the war as my not supporting them.


----------



## dmp (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> I think Taurus did a good job of addressing this.  I have a friend from college who is in the Marine Corps.  He is going to Iraq because he _asked _ to go.  However, he told me that he does not support the war, but he is a soldier in the military and has promised to serve our country.




No "good" marine would ever call him or herself a 'soldier'.


----------



## CSM (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> I think Taurus did a good job of addressing this.  I have a friend from college who is in the Marine Corps.  He is going to Iraq because he _asked _ to go.  However, he told me that he does not support the war, but he is a soldier in the military and has promised to serve our country.
> 
> I bet some soldiers feel the way you express above and some do not take it personally when people oppose the war.  Should people shut their mouths about how they feel because they are worried what kind of effect this will have on our soldiers?  My intent is not to disrespect our soldiers; however, I can see how some would take my opposition to the war as my not supporting them.


I have no problem with folks who are against our invovlement in Iraq. It some of their reasons that drive me crazy. For example, when someone says they support the troops, then call the war "illegal"; that implies that every military person in Iraq is aiding and abetting a criminal act. That fact alone makes me very angry because it tells those who are killing soldiers in Iraq that they are justified, it tells the world court supporters that US soldiers should be tried as war criminals, and it most certainly gives aid and comfort to the enemy. You cannnot say you support the troops and then turn around and give the enemy ammunition.


----------



## CSM (Sep 22, 2005)

dmp said:
			
		

> No "good" marine would ever call him or herself a 'soldier'.


yeah, them jarheads are funny like that


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 22, 2005)

dmp said:
			
		

> No "good" marine would ever call him or herself a 'soldier'.



LOL  What word would they use?  I cannot remember what word he used--I paraphrased his words. 

We dated in college.  I remember when he was going through ROTC, he would tell me how lame the Army ROTC was.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> LOL  What word would they use?  I cannot remember what word he used--I paraphrased his words.
> 
> We dated in college.  I remember when he was going through ROTC, he would tell me how lame the Army ROTC was.



A Marine calls himself/herself a Marine.  They are not soldiers, those are in the Army.


----------



## archangel (Sep 22, 2005)

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> A Marine calls himself/herself a Marine.  They are not soldiers, those are in the Army.




"We were soldiers" 7th Cav rocks...! At least after Custers Fiasco...was corrected 1965VN :firing:


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

double post


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

no1tovote4, sorry. To _ME_, its just common knowledge, why it was delayed so long. I believe the republican party represents the same interests as the politicians who defended large multinational corporations, who had alot of money in german industry.




			
				CSM said:
			
		

> ...when someone says they support the troops, then call the war "illegal"; that implies that every military person in Iraq is aiding and abetting a criminal act.


You think our troops are doing something illegal if they are ordered to it? I dont think so. 



			
				hobbit said:
			
		

> Bringing the troops home in defeat is worse than getting them killed in the first place.


Its not defeat when bringing home our troops saves their lives, stops hundreds of attacks on us a month, and saves us billions so that we can effectivily focus our energy on capture the top bad guys.
Refering to your Normandy scenerio, its already happening...to sweep through fellujah, killing all the terrorists, only to find out its a terrorist safehaven the next month, that is a defeat.
If this type of war is unwinnable, because we are trying to fight an IDEA with military force, then its not worth our troops lives.
Since you believe this war is winnable, you cannot see why stopping would be good. Sorry.

Semper FI!!


----------



## Zhukov (Sep 22, 2005)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> If it's not happening, it's not the soldier's fault. They're following orders.


Nuremberg decided 'following orders' was not a legitimate defense.  Any soldier in Iraq who feels he is being ordered to execute an illegal and immoral war is obligated to disobey orders.

By not doing so they are essentially agreeing with the war.

They want to win, and they want to come home victorious and with their honor.  That's why...



			
				ProudDem said:
			
		

> I do not support this war. I do, however, fully support our
> troops.



...makes no sense.  You do not support what they are fighting and risking their lives for so therefore you do not support them.

You want them to come home now.  Coming home now would be a failure i.e. you want them to fail.  You want them to fail so that they don't die.  They want to live and win, and many of them would rather die than come home having lost.



			
				ProudDem said:
			
		

> Everytime I see anti-war protestors, they are begging to bring our soldiers back. Why isn't that indicative of caring about our troops?


Because for many of them, bringing the troops home is a red (pun intended) herring.  They only want the troops to come home because they hate what they see as capitalistic American thuggery and want America to be defeated and shamed.


----------



## Abbey Normal (Sep 22, 2005)

Husband, calling wife from the office: "Hi honey. I'm just taking a break from work, and thought I'd give you a call."

Wife: "Oh, hi dear. It's nice to hear from you, and I hope your day is going well. But can I just say something about that work? I believe that the work you do for that company is wrong, immoral and based on lies. I believe that the CEO of your company has some evil plan to benefit himself and his friends by having you do that work. I believe that no matter how well you do the work, or what your personal intentions in doing it are, it is wrong and is all based on ugly lies. The work you are doing is an embarassment to me and the whole family. I despise your boss and everything he stands for. 

And honey, look outside your window tomorrow, and you will see me picketing with signs outside your office. Just to show just how much I am against the work you are doing. In fact, regardless of where you are in completing your project, or how much you have invested in getting it done, I want you to quit the job immediately and come home. 

Oh, and by the way dear, _I'm proud of you and support you_!"


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

*If you'all thought the war was illegal. You would not support our troops? thats just NOT RIGHT!.
*
Zhukov 





> Nuremberg decided 'following orders' was not a legitimate defense.


A marine patroling the streets has EVERY RIGHT to defend himself and his buddies.
Those nazi soldiers who lined up naked civilians and shot each one in the head, cannot use this 'following orders' defense.


----------



## trobinett (Sep 22, 2005)

Yea, you can support the troops, and not support the war.

It just makes you look real confused.

Just be honest with both yourself, and those you are talking with, it`s either one or the other.

Can`t have it both ways.


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 22, 2005)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> Nuremberg decided 'following orders' was not a legitimate defense.  Any soldier in Iraq who feels he is being ordered to execute an illegal and immoral war is obligated to disobey orders.
> 
> By not doing so they are essentially agreeing with the war.
> 
> They want to win, and they want to come home victorious and with their honor.  That's why...



By not doing so, they are essentially agreeing with the war?  Not every case.  I am sure a majority of the soldiers support the war.  But some do not and STILL serve there with passion.  You make it seem as though your interpretation of the facts is the ONLY interpretation.  Yeah right.



> ...makes no sense.  You do not support what they are fighting and risking their lives for so therefore you do not support them.



Oh, because you say I dont' support the troops, that is a fact?  Give me a break.  Thank you for being able to tell me how I feel.  *rolling eyes*



> You want them to come home now.  Coming home now would be a failure i.e. you want them to fail.  You want them to fail so that they don't die.  They want to live and win, and many of them would rather die than come home having lost.



I never said I wanted them to come home NOW.  It hurts me to read about more soldiers dying.  That's all I said. And, of course, in your infinite wisdom, because I said I don't support the war, somehow that computes to my wanting them to come home RIGHT NOW.  Okay, if you say so.



> Because for many of them, bringing the troops home is a red (pun intended) herring.  They only want the troops to come home because they hate what they see as capitalistic American thuggery and want America to be defeated and shamed.



They want America to be defeated?  Zhukov, it's hard to take you seriously when you make assertions like this.  That's just plain ridiculous.


----------



## Zhukov (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> By not doing so, they are essentially agreeing with the war?  Not every case.  I am sure a majority of the soldiers support the war.  But some do not and STILL serve there with passion.  You make it seem as though your interpretation of the facts is the ONLY interpretation.  Yeah right.


It's very simple, but I will repeat myself, if they believe the war is illegal they are obligated to disobey orders.



> Oh, because you say I dont' support the troops, that is a fact?


It's not a fact because I say so, it's a fact because.



> I never said I wanted them to come home NOW.  It hurts me to read about more soldiers dying.  That's all I said. And, of course, in your infinite wisdom, because I said I don't support the war, somehow that computes to my wanting them to come home RIGHT NOW.  Okay, if you say so.


So then tell us, you are the President of the United States of America, you don't support this war, what do you do?



> They want America to be defeated?  Zhukov, it's hard to take you seriously when you make assertions like this.  That's just plain ridiculous.


You think so?  I think denying it is just plain naive.  Do you know who organizes the most publicized anti-war rallys?  They are called the ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition.  Do you know where ANSWER came from?  They are a front for a variety of radical left wing fringe groups including the American Communist Workers Party.


And we all know how much Communists love America.


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 22, 2005)

trobinett said:
			
		

> Yea, you can support the troops, and not support the war.
> 
> It just makes you look real confused.
> 
> ...



Says who?  YOU?  Whatever.


----------



## dmp (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> Says who?  YOU?  Whatever.




Zhukov is making a very good case...read what he writes/types.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> Says who?  YOU?  Whatever.



It's not supportive to tell people they're dying for no good reason.


----------



## insein (Sep 22, 2005)

You can't have it both ways as many have explained.  

Lets say this.  My favorite team is the Eagles.  I say i support them with all my heart.  Yet on gameday i goto the game and wear a cowboys jersey and sceam "Eagles cant win, they should quit!"  But i fully support the team.  

Does that make any lick of sense to you?


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 22, 2005)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> It's very simple, but I will repeat myself, if they believe the war is illegal they are obligated to disobey orders.



Zhukov, nothing is that black and white.  There are consequences to disobeying an order.  Some would have to weigh which one is the lesser of two evils.  But again, I said I believe the majority of the troops supports the war.  



> ?It's not a fact because I say so, it's a fact because.



Oh, okay. 



> So then tell us, you are the President of the United States of America, you don't support this war, what do you do?



I would create a strategy for exiting Iraq, but I would not have the troops pulled out cold turkey.  



> You think so?  I think denying it is just plain naive.  Do you know who organizes the most publicized anti-war rallys?  They are called the ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition.  Do you know where ANSWER came from?  The are front for a variety of radical left wing fringe groups including the American Communist Workers Party.
> 
> 
> And we all know how much Communists love America.



I am saying that I have a hard time believing that the majority of people who do not support the war want America to fail.  Have you spoken to these people and they have told you such?  Or are you inferring that from their actions?  It's okay for you to make that inferrence, but you sure could do a better job of making a more credible inference.


----------



## dmp (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> Zhukov, nothing is that black and white.




Of course some things are black and white - absolutes DO exist; your denial of their existance does not invalidate those things which are absolutely right or wrong.


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 22, 2005)

insein said:
			
		

> You can't have it both ways as many have explained.
> 
> Lets say this.  My favorite team is the Eagles.  I say i support them with all my heart.  Yet on gameday i goto the game and wear a cowboys jersey and sceam "Eagles cant win, they should quit!"  But i fully support the team.
> 
> Does that make any lick of sense to you?



If you and everyone else who is accusing me of not being able to be against the war BUT support our troops wants to believe that, that's fine.  Based upon my definition of supporting our troops, I am supporting them.  If it's not your definition of supporting them, no problem.

But to tell me that I can't have it both ways is a joke.


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 22, 2005)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> It's not supportive to tell people they're dying for no good reason.



It's not?  Well, Avenger, I guess those who die won't really know how I feel, will they?


----------



## Zhukov (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> Zhukov, nothing is that black and white.


Lots of things are that black and white.



> There are consequences to disobeying an order.


Some Nazi's found out there were consequences to obeying an order.



> Some would have to weigh which one is the lesser of two evils.


Since when is doing the right thing evil?  



> I would create a strategy for exiting Iraq, but I would not have the troops pulled out cold turkey.



Sounds like you and the President are on the same page.  You sure you don't support the war?  Of course, your response bears a further question: Is your exit strategy Victory?



> I am saying that I have a hard time believing that the majority of people who do not support the war want America to fail.


I didn't say the majority, I said many.



			
				Zhukov said:
			
		

> Because for *many* of them, bringing the troops home is a red (pun intended) herring. They only want the troops to come home because they hate what they see as capitalistic American thuggery and want America to be defeated and shamed.



I believe the majority of people who support these protests have no idea who organizes them let alone what the most vocal protestors ultimately want.  The Soviet's called people like that _useful idiots_.



> It's okay for you to make that inferrence, but you sure could do a better job of making a more credible inference.


They say it openly themselves.  Go check out the ACWP's webpage.  We (America) are oppresing the world; we must be stopped.


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 22, 2005)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> Lots of things are that black and white.



Okay, although I believe I said that not everything was black and white.  So I meant that.  It also means that not everything is NOT black and white.  



> Some Nazi's found out there were consequences to obeying an order.
> 
> Since when is doing the right thing evil?



We were discussing soldiers who did not support the war but went to Iraq anyway.  "the lesser of two evils" is a saying.  Sheesh.





> Sounds like you and the President are on the same page.  You sure you don't support the war?  Of course, your response bears a further question: Is your exit strategy Victory?



I don't know.  Would victory mean that all the insurgents were gone and there was peaceful democracy in Iraq?  I honestly do not believe that is going to happen. 

I'm not an expert on this kind of stuff.  But I would not let soldiers continue to die if there was no end in sight as to this war.



> I didn't say the majority, I said many.



You sure did.  It's about time you said something not so definitive. 



> I believe the majority of people who support these protests have no idea who organizes them let alone what the most vocal protestors ultimately want.  The Soviet's called people like that _useful idiots_.
> 
> They say it openly themselves.  Go check out the ACWP's webpage.  We (America) are oppresing the world; we must be stopped.



They may not know.  Some people just want to express their opposition without being associated with a particular group.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 22, 2005)

> Some people just want to express their opposition without being associated with a particular group.


Right--no consequences from exercising your right to speak.
Doesn't work that way


----------



## Abbey Normal (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> ...I'm not an expert on this kind of stuff.  But I would not let soldiers continue to die if there was no end in sight as to this war...



I am sure that there were times in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and WWII that many, many soldiers were dying, and there seemed to be no end in sight. Yet they stayed the course, toughed it out, and were victorious. That is most definitely not the time to cut and run.


----------



## Abbey Normal (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem, in my little husband/wife scenario in a former post, did you think that wife was truly supporting her husband? Do you think he felt supported and was able to do his job well after talking to her?


----------



## Zhukov (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> Okay, although I believe I said that not everything was black and white.  So I meant that.  It also means that not everything is NOT black and white.


You didn't, but if you are correcting yourself, fine.



> We were discussing soldiers who did not support the war but went to Iraq anyway.


Alright, well I think then it's time you explain your non-support for the war, because it's one thing for a soldier to think, "Gee, I don't want to go to Iraq.  Iraq sucks; it's all hot over there and people will be shooting at me.  But my buddies are going and I made a promise when I signed my name so I'll go too," but quite another thing for a soldier to think, "Gee, this war is completely illegal, what the President wants us to do is morally wrong and against the law, it's just for oil and to makes his buddies richer, but I guess I'll go and risk my life anyways."  What sort of non-support are we talking about here?  



> I don't know.  Would victory mean that all the insurgents were gone and there was peaceful democracy in Iraq?  I honestly do not believe that is going to happen.


Then, please, paint the conditions that would describe an Iraq you would feel comfortable pulling all our troops out of.  Give me your definition of victory (you don't want them to fail, right?) with respect to the situation we are in now.



> They may not know.  Some people just want to express their opposition without being associated with a particular group.


Well now at least you do know.  Make of that information what you will.

I don't think the majority of protestors want to see this country destroyed (even if they are unwittingly assisting those who do).  I think the majority of the protestors are stupid or ignorant.  The stupid are the ones with the "War is not the Answer" bumper stickers, the ignorant are the ones who claim this is an illegal war, or who believe there will be more peace if we left Iraq.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> no1tovote4, sorry. To _ME_, its just common knowledge, why it was delayed so long. I believe the republican party represents the same interests as the politicians who defended large multinational corporations, who had alot of money in german industry.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I can stomach only so much ..... your sorry little ignorant ass don't RATE to use the term "Semper Fi."  You more than likely have no idea what it means.  Keep your scuzzy little lips off MY Marine Corps motto, shithead.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> Everytime I see pictures of anti-war protestors, I see those who support the war holding signs that say, "Support Our Troops."
> 
> Can someone please explain to me why people assume that just because
> someone does not support the war that it means that person also does not
> ...



http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?p=331204#post331204



> Dude, that is a cop out answer right out of the "We support the troops but not the war" handbook.
> 
> Your friends are the ones squeezing the triggers and making live bodies into dead ones. If the war is unjust, then their actions are immoral. And THAT is the message you and those like you send EVERY TIME you make such statements. THAT is the message received.
> 
> ...


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 22, 2005)

Abbey Normal said:
			
		

> ProudDem, in my little husband/wife scenario in a former post, did you think that wife was truly supporting her husband? Do you think he felt supported and was able to do his job well after talking to her?



Abbey, I mean to comment on your little dialog, which I found funny (but not in a deragartory way).  I dont' think it's a good comparison.  The husband CHOOSES to work there.  For our troops, they have no choice.

Take a judge I once worked for.  He is totally pro-life.  He had to make decisions based upon Roe v. Wade that he did not like.  His wife did the "March for Life."  He is BOUND by Roe v. Wade in applying the law.  So does his wife's protest show she doesn't support him?  NOPE.


----------



## insein (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> If you and everyone else who is accusing me of not being able to be against the war BUT support our troops wants to believe that, that's fine.  Based upon my definition of supporting our troops, I am supporting them.  If it's not your definition of supporting them, no problem.
> 
> But to tell me that I can't have it both ways is a joke.



Im not laughing.  

You either support the troops or you don't.  You don't say that their mission is illegal and thus label them as illegal by doing so.  Do you say that a thief is not a thief if he is doing something you perceive to be thieving?  If someone steals a car, do you say that you support him but denounce his actions?  

Your perceiving this war to be wrong yet you are supporting those that commit the act?  Makes zero sense.


----------



## Hagbard Celine (Sep 22, 2005)

Hey, the kids they're sending over to that blown-up parking lot don't have anything to do with the reasons for the war.  The war sux.  Nobody with any sense disputes that.  These kids are just following orders going over there.  And I hear that patriotism is pushed pretty hard in the military, so a lot of them are over there because they genuinely feel that they are protecting their country.  So of course I feel sorry for them and their families and I don't want any harm to come to them.  So I support the troops.  I support their well being because I support their being pulled out of harm's way by being able to come home to live with their families.

You jingoist war hawks see the world in black and white when in fact the world is made up of a million shades of gray!  This war is illegal in the eyes of the rest of the world.  But the soldiers at the bottom following orders aren't to be held responsible, they didn't start the war!  The politicians did!


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

GunnyL said:
			
		

> I can stomach only so much ..... your sorry little ignorant ass don't RATE to use the term "Semper Fi."  You more than likely have no idea what it means.  Keep your scuzzy little lips off MY Marine Corps motto, shithead.


I love the marines, they are my fav, sorry army dudes. But thats why i know more about them than the average idiot. 

Let me tell you why you are wrong.
YOU KEEP TELLING ME that *I* think the troops are doing something ILLEGAL! 
 I DONT believe our troops are doing things ILLEGAL: BECUASE they are protecting themselves from enemy insurgents and terrorists!! whats wrong with that?

Therefore, all your nuremburg bullshit is futile.


----------



## insein (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> Abbey, I mean to comment on your little dialog, which I found funny (but not in a deragartory way).  I dont' think it's a good comparison.  The husband CHOOSES to work there.  *For our troops, they have no choice.*



They made the choice when they joined the military.  They were not drafted.  Once you become enlisted, you signed on for whatever is in store for you.  If you have qualms about fighting in a war, DON'T JOIN THE MILITARY!


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 22, 2005)

"These kids are just following orders going over there."

Just a few questions for you...

Just following orders was not a valid excuse for what was done in other wars why would it be in this one?  If you believe the war to be illegal, are not the actions of those perpetrating the action illegal regardless of whose orders they are following?  Where is the expectation of those that would not follow illegal orders by going to an illegal war?

If you believe that everything they do is wrong because if was flawed from the start, can you say you support what they are doing?  If you cannot support what they are doing why do you excuse it by telling yourself that they are just following orders?

If you tell them what they are doing is wrong, can it be perceived as support and if so how?


----------



## insein (Sep 22, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> Hey, the kids they're sending over to that blown-up parking lot don't have anything to do with the reasons for the war.  The war sux.  Nobody with any sense disputes that.  *These kids are just following orders going over there.  And I hear that patriotism is pushed pretty hard in the military, so a lot of them are over there because they genuinely feel that they are protecting their country. * So of course I feel sorry for them and their families and I don't want any harm to come to them.  So I support the troops.  I support their well being because I support their being pulled out of harm's way by being able to come home to live with their families.



Basically you just said that all these young boys are too stupid to think for themselves.  Because no one joins the military for love of their country.  

You support ending the war.  You support the American withdraw.  YOU DO NOT SUPPORT THE TROOPS! At least be honest with yourself.


----------



## insein (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> I love the marines, they are my fav, sorry army dudes. But thats why i know more about them than the average idiot.
> 
> Let me tell you why you are wrong.
> YOU KEEP TELLING ME that *I* think the troops are doing something ILLEGAL!
> ...



So you support the war then if they arent doing anything illegal?  The principles of the war are clear to you and you agree with them, therefore you support the war and are rooting for the troops to win the war.


----------



## Hagbard Celine (Sep 22, 2005)

> I can stomach only so much ..... your sorry little ignorant ass don't RATE to use the term "Semper Fi." You more than likely have no idea what it means. Keep your scuzzy little lips off MY Marine Corps motto, shithead.



Hey GunnyL, when you walk, do your knuckles drag on the ground?


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> I love the marines, they are my fav, sorry army dudes. But thats why i know more about them than the average idiot.
> 
> Let me tell you why you are wrong.
> YOU KEEP TELLING ME that *I* think the troops are doing something ILLEGAL!
> ...



Your response is a delfection, and has nothing to do with what was posted.  And as usual, your shit just doesn't come together quite right.

Committing a criminal act/carrying out an unlawful order has NOTHING to do with justified self-defense, junior.

Buy a clue.


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 22, 2005)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> You didn't, but if you are correcting yourself, fine.



eek, you're right.  I did not say that.  Oops.  I am correcting myself.



> Alright, well I think then it's time you explain your non-support for the war, because it's one thing for a soldier to think, "Gee, I don't want to go to Iraq.  Iraq sucks; it's all hot over there and people will be shooting at me.  But my buddies are going and I made a promise when I signed my name so I'll go too," but quite another thing for a soldier to think, "Gee, this war is completely illegal, what the President wants us to do is morally wrong and against the law, it's just for oil and to makes his buddies richer, but I guess I'll go and risk my life anyways."  What sort of non-support are we talking about here?



I do not support the cause of this war.  We were told that Saddam Hussein was making WMDs and that we could not wait any longer to take him out.  He was a danger to the world and a danger to us.  And we should take him out before it's too late.  He reminds us of how vulnerable we were on September 11th.  

So our soldiers run in there, without enough troops I might add, and they're able to take Saddam out of there very quickly.  Wonderful.  But then we find out that there are no WMDs.  Then insurgents come into Iraq and start killing our soldiers.  In my heart, and it's okay if you do not agree with me, I believe that Bush exaggerated the intelligence.  Can I prove it?  Probably not.  But that is what my gut instinct tells me.

Thus, I do not support our reasons for going in there since they did not exist and were based upon exaggerations laid out by our honorable president.  Therefore, I don't appreciate our soldiers getting killed over there for NOTHING.  I know Saddam was a horrible dictator and that we are doing the Iraqis some good; however, that is not enough reason for us to go in there.  

I have never told a soldier (or Marine) that I don't support the war they are fighting.  I keep my mouth shut.  However, if one asked me what I thought and I genuinely thought that they would be able to withstand my opposition, I would state it.  But I am not out there protesting, putting bumper stickers on my car against this war, or doing anything out in public.  

When I read the newspaper and it has articles about another burial at Arlington Cemetery, it upsets me because I care about them.  I see the number of soldiers that are dead increasing regularly.  This bothers me.

I am part of a group that sends care packages to the troops.  I have donated phone cards for them to use.  I have sent them Valentines telling them I support them.  I have gone to Walter Reed because I chose to go and see the injured soldiers.  NOT ONCE did I ever say to them, "Well, that nasty injury was because of a lie."  

THAT IS MY SUPPORT



> Then, please, paint the conditions that would describe an Iraq you would feel comfortable pulling all our troops out of.  Give me your definition of victory (you don't want them to fail, right?) with respect to the situation we are in now.



May I pass on this right now?  I don't have the energy to come up with a thoughtful answer.



> I don't think the majority of protestors want to see this country destroyed (even if they are unwittingly assisting those who do).  I think the majority of the protestors are stupid or ignorant.  The stupid are the ones with the "War is not the Answer" bumper stickers, the ignorant are the ones who claim this is an illegal war, or who believe there will be more peace if we left Iraq.



We can agree to disagree.  I believe that war is the answer in some circumstances (i.e., Afganistan) and that it is not the answer to the war in Iraq.  I guess for those who say this is an illegal war, they are saying that Congress granted the President the right to go to war based upon evidence that did not exist.  I would not label it "illegal."


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> Hey GunnyL, when you walk, do your knuckles drag on the ground?



Mostly just across the noses of loudmouthed, ignorant leftist pieces of shit.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 22, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> Hey GunnyL, when you walk, do your knuckles drag on the ground?



Fantastic support of the troops, calling them, even after they have retired, knuckledraggers is usually a sign of sincere affection and genuine approval..



Thanks, but no thanks for your "support".  Either you are part of the problem, or you are part of the solution.  Giving up is not a solution we can afford.


----------



## Hagbard Celine (Sep 22, 2005)

insein said:
			
		

> Basically you just said that all these young boys are too stupid to think for themselves.  Because no one joins the military for love of their country.
> 
> You support ending the war.  You support the American withdraw.  YOU DO NOT SUPPORT THE TROOPS! At least be honest with yourself.



You apparently completely ignored the part where I said that "many of them are probably over there because they have a genuine sense of patriotism."  

And are you telling me that soldiers join up because they want to have free will?  Joining the military is about following orders dunce!  Give me a break you are a neanderthal, warhawk.


----------



## dmp (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> I love the marines, they are my fav, sorry army dudes. But thats why i know more about them than the average idiot.
> 
> Let me tell you why you are wrong.
> YOU KEEP TELLING ME that *I* think the troops are doing something ILLEGAL!
> ...




If you haven't served, your opinion or like of ANY service is worthless.


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 22, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> You apparently completely ignored the part where I said that "many of them are probably over there because they have a genuine sense of patriotism."
> 
> And are you telling me that soldiers join up because they want to have free will?  Joining the military is about following orders dunce!  Give me a break you are a neanderthal, warhawk.



Beautifully stated!


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 22, 2005)

GunnyL said:
			
		

> Mostly just across the noses of loudmouthed, ignorant leftist pieces of shit.



GunnyL, I see you are an former elisted Marine.  I guess you weren't able to be an officer, could you?


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 22, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> You apparently completely ignored the part where I said that "many of them are probably over there because they have a genuine sense of patriotism."
> 
> And are you telling me that soldiers join up because they want to have free will?  Joining the military is about following orders dunce!  Give me a break you are a neanderthal, warhawk.



Joining the military is about pride in the Nation and service.  This assumption that people in the military lose their sense of morality and become automatons blindly following orders is simply a fallacious assumption without regard to the actual humanity of those that serve.


----------



## insein (Sep 22, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> You apparently completely ignored the part where I said that "many of them are probably over there because they have a genuine sense of patriotism."
> 
> And are you telling me that soldiers join up because they want to have free will?  Joining the military is about following orders dunce!  Give me a break *you are a neanderthal, warhawk.*



Well thank you.  Coming from a slimy, inverterbrate worm, that is quite a complement.

Im so sure of your sincerity when you said they have a genuine sense of patriotism.  I read it as "they were all brainwashed to think that way."  Excuse me for disecting your liberal mind.  I think i need a shower now.  Im all icky from being in there.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> GunnyL, I see you are an former elisted Marine.  I guess you weren't able to be an officer, could you?



I had every opportunity, thanks.  Why the hell would i want to be a zero?  They don't get to say what they think ..... Gunny's do.

But don't think I missed the attempted backhanded insult. 

btw .... I see you are a liberal.  Unable to think coherently, huh?


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> GunnyL, I see you are an former elisted Marine.  I guess you weren't able to be an officer, could you?



Almost all Non-Coms can be officers, they choose to be there for their marines, sailors, soldiers, airmen.  I regard the service of career non-coms to be one of the higher callings of all those in the forces.  You cannot be more disregarding and ignorant of the service if you had tried.

Either you have genuine high regard for those who have served before or are serving now or you do not.  Your actions point to what kind of regard you do have for those that serve, and put lie to the argument that you support the troops at all.


----------



## Hagbard Celine (Sep 22, 2005)

> btw .... I see you are a liberal. Unable to think coherently, huh?



More like "unable to swallow every piece of sh*t Fox News feeds to me."


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 22, 2005)

GunnyL said:
			
		

> I had every opportunity, thanks.  Why the hell would i want to be a zero?  They don't get to say what they think ..... Gunny's do.
> 
> But don't think I missed the attempted backhanded insult.
> 
> btw .... I see you are a liberal.  Unable to think coherently, huh?



Just playing your game--you know, name-calling.


----------



## insein (Sep 22, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> More like "unable to swallow every piece of sh*t Fox News feeds to me."



Spoken like a true cultist.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> Just playing your game--you know, name-calling.



Excuse me?  Scroll back.  I responded your initial post with a post of my own and you never replied.  I don't recall having called YOU a name, and in the case of the other two who I have, perhaps you need to take a look at what you are defending.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 22, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> More like "unable to swallow every piece of sh*t Fox News feeds to me."



But clapping and whistling for more rat feces when fed to you by M. Moore and his ilk...


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> More like "unable to swallow every piece of sh*t Fox News feeds to me."



No, you got the "PC Sheep Handbook" to read script from.


----------



## Hagbard Celine (Sep 22, 2005)

> Spoken like a true cultist.



"Cult" is what the big congregation calls the small congregation.

You worship war.


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 22, 2005)

GunnyL said:
			
		

> Excuse me?  Scroll back.  I responded your initial post with a post of my own and you never replied.  I don't recall having called YOU a name, and in the case of the other two who I have, perhaps you need to take a look at what you are defending.



You are right.  I am sorry for making that comment. I did not like the way you were talking to Celine and Xen.  I saw a very hateful person.  But I didn't need to get involved, and for that, I am sorry.  I may not have seen your post.  I'll look for it.


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 22, 2005)

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Either you have genuine high regard for those who have served before or are serving now or you do not.  Your actions point to what kind of regard you do have for those that serve, and put lie to the argument that you support the troops at all.



Vote, you have no earthly idea what you are talking about.  Go see my original post. I have been working for veterans for 10 years.  Don't tell me I don't have a high regard for them.  Buh bye.


----------



## insein (Sep 22, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> "Cult" is what the big congregation calls the small congregation.
> 
> You worship war.



Care to prove how?  Or are we generalizing because we have nothing left to throw out.


----------



## archangel (Sep 22, 2005)

this is starting to really sound familiar....dejavu...1960's "War What is it good for...." wonder when the libs will start passing out the Tie dyed T-shirts..practice puckering up for the big spit off...and chant "Baby Killers"!

The names have changed over the years...but the message is still the same!
"Bring our boys home" Well golly gee maybe they want to finish what they started for once...my generation was denied the satisfaction...thus a favorite song in Vietnam..."I can't get no satisfaction"! Wake up children of the "Hippies" our troops say up yours!


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> Vote, you have no earthly idea what you are talking about.  Go see my original post. I have been working for veterans for 10 years.  Don't tell me I don't have a high regard for them.  Buh bye.



You don't support them.  You think they're dying for nothing.


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 22, 2005)

GunnyL said:
			
		

> http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?p=331204#post331204



Gunny, go see my response on Page 3.  I explain what it is that I don't support and do support.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> You are right.  I am sorry for making that comment. I did not like the way you were talking to Celine and Xen.  I saw a very hateful person.  But I didn't need to get involved, and for that, I am sorry.  I may not have seen your post.  I'll look for it.



I hate to go all partisan here, but you are defending two posters simply because they are liberal.

One, is an incoherent child, and perhaps you should read some of his posts from yesterday before judging me.  I was about as patient as a person can be.

The other insulted me with his first post in this thread.  I responded in kind.  Perhaps you should discuss his name-calling with HIM?

Oh yea, I'm the conservative .....


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 22, 2005)

insein said:
			
		

> Im not laughing.
> 
> You either support the troops or you don't.  You don't say that their mission is illegal and thus label them as illegal by doing so.  Do you say that a thief is not a thief if he is doing something you perceive to be thieving?  If someone steals a car, do you say that you support him but denounce his actions?
> 
> Your perceiving this war to be wrong yet you are supporting those that commit the act?  Makes zero sense.



*YAWN.*


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 22, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> "Cult" is what the big congregation calls the small congregation.


You forgot the last line of the saying:

Right after they drink the Kool-Aid.



> You worship war.



What a disingenuous and simply hammerhanded unjustifiable and duplicitous statement based entirely in assumption and nowhere to be supported by verifiable fact stated only because of the belief that there would be no answer that could "satisfy" you.

If we were to answer in kind it might sound something like this...

"I'm the rubber, you're the glue....  N'yah, N'yah!"


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 22, 2005)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> You don't support them.  You think they're dying for nothing.



If you want to draw that conclusion, you go right ahead.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> If you want to draw that conclusion, you go right ahead.



So you think they're dying for a good cause?  Tell me how my conclusion is wrong.  Correct me.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> Vote, you have no earthly idea what you are talking about.  Go see my original post. I have been working for veterans for 10 years.  Don't tell me I don't have a high regard for them.  Buh bye.



Buh-bye?  LOL.

Your disregard is shown in how you speak to and treat veterans, I have seen your "high regard" as represented by your true actions and wish to have none of it.


----------



## archangel (Sep 22, 2005)

archangel said:
			
		

> this is starting to really sound familiar....dejavu...1960's "War What is it good for...." wonder when the libs will start passing out the Tie dyed T-shirts..practice puckering up for the big spit off...and chant "Baby Killers"!
> 
> The names have changed over the years...but the message is still the same!
> "Bring our boys home" Well golly gee maybe they want to finish what they started for once...my generation was denied the satisfaction...thus a favorite song in Vietnam..."I can't get no satisfaction"! Wake up children of the "Hippies" our troops say up yours!




BUMP!


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 22, 2005)

GunnyL said:
			
		

> I hate to go all partisan here, but you are defending two posters simply because they are liberal.
> 
> One, is an incoherent child, and perhaps you should read some of his posts from yesterday before judging me.  I was about as patient as a person can be.
> 
> ...



I have to protect my own.


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 22, 2005)

archangel said:
			
		

> BUMP!



That's kinda cute--you're bumping your own thread.


----------



## Shattered (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> I have to protect my own.



Regardless of their stupidity?  Heh.


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 22, 2005)

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Buh-bye?  LOL.
> 
> Your disregard is shown in how you speak to and treat veterans, I have seen your "high regard" as represented by your true actions and wish to have none of it.



Okay.  I really don't care.


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 22, 2005)

Shattered said:
			
		

> Regardless of their stupidity?  Heh.



Sometimes.


----------



## Shattered (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> Sometimes.



Why?  If they're being stupid, allow them to be educated.  Defending them regardless of their own stupidity only makes YOU look bad.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> Okay.  I really don't care.



Finally a bit of truth.

Filling a basket to send to somebody you believe to be an automaton following orders and knuckle-dragging their way through an illegal or foolish action doesn't tend to show support if at the same time you disregard them as people.  It might make you feel better about the disregard you have for them, but it is not support.


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 22, 2005)

Shattered said:
			
		

> Why?  If they're being stupid, allow them to be educated.  Defending them regardless of their own stupidity only makes YOU look bad.



Shattered, I said _sometimes_, and I meant it.  "Being stupid" is in the eye of the beholder.  Are you the one who said that my credibility was at stake over the weekend?  If you think I look bad, that's fine.  I guess you think that such is supposed to hurt me.  Okay.


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 22, 2005)

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Finally a bit of truth.
> 
> Filling a basket to send to somebody you believe to be an automaton following orders and knuckle-dragging their way through an illegal or foolish action doesn't tend to show support if at the same time you disregard them as people.  It might make you feel better about the disregard you have for them, but it is not support.



OMG, I am so hurt.  

YAWN.


----------



## Shattered (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> Shattered, I said _sometimes_, and I meant it.  "Being stupid" is in the eye of the beholder.  Are you the one who said that my credibility was at stake over the weekend?  If you think I look bad, that's fine.  I guess you think that such is supposed to hurt me.  Okay.



I haven't mentioned a word about your credibility - perhaps you should check the posts again?  I merely stated that supporting stupidity makes you look stupid - as in this case.


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 22, 2005)

Shattered said:
			
		

> I haven't mentioned a word about your credibility - perhaps you should check the posts again?  I merely stated that supporting stupidity makes you look stupid - as in this case.



I was asking you because someone said something about my credibility, and they said it in a similar way that you did.  That's all.  

Yeah yeah yeah, you think I look stupid.  OMG, I am devastated!


----------



## Shattered (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> I was asking you because someone said something about my credibility, and they said it in a similar way that you did.  That's all.
> 
> Yeah yeah yeah, you think I look stupid.  OMG, I am devastated!



So.. you're hearing the same thing from multiple people - so often you're getting them confused, and yet you still don't see a problem/pattern?

How weird...


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

insein said:
			
		

> So you support the war then if they arent doing anything illegal?  The principles of the war are clear to you and you agree with them, therefore you support the war and are rooting for the troops to win the war.


No, I support the troops, they are doing NOTHING illegal. The threat they are facing, really IS their enemy, OUR enemy. 
They have every right to protect themselves. Its very understandable with the threat they are facing..
They were/are fighting thousands and thousands of enemies in fallujah, large groups of enemies. These are MAJOR threats. 
Even when a little kid picks up an AK and our soldier shoots him, only to find out it was just a piece of an ak, garbage. I don't blame our soldier for what he did.
Its the nature of this type of war that i blame.

*TROOPS: NOTHING ILLEGAL
THE DECISION OF WAR: ILLEGAL*

Why is it our troops fault?


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 22, 2005)

Shattered said:
			
		

> So.. you're hearing the same thing from multiple people - so often you're getting them confused, and yet you still don't see a problem/pattern?
> 
> How weird...



If I cared about the person making the statement, I might see a problem.  But both of you are conservatives, who like to twist my words around, and so I accord your assessment NO probative value whatsoever.


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

_*GUNNYL*_, same thing for you. 

TROOPS: NOTHING ILLEGAL
THE DECISION OF WAR: ILLEGAL

would you blame the troops for someting they have no part in?
Your marines have done NOTHING illegal. Those are their enemies down there, i dont disagree with that. Its the decision, by someone far away from them and their procedures.


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> ...conservatives, who like to twist my words around...


I know! its so annoying, its like they don't even know they are doing it. EVEN when they do a perfect twist.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> If I cared about the person making the statement, I might see a problem.  But both of you are conservatives, who like to twist my words around, and so I accord your assessment NO probative value whatsoever.



Now, not only are you treating the ones you know to be veterans on the site as valueless knuckledraggers thus devaluing your own "support" through negative action, you now have shown that you think that you think that no opinion from a conservative has value either.  That is floccinaucinihilipilification brought to an extreme.

I gave value to your opinion, I gave respect in my answers throughout the thread and in return we hear that nothing you hear from a conservative will be given value by you?

That you can string five words together at a time doesn't change the fact that if you truly find all things stated by conservatives as valueless you are simply a troll and will bring nothing of value to the site.  I would hope that you would be above such posturing.  Are you truly wishing to state this, or are you having issues with the idea that words you state and actions you take mean something?


----------



## insein (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> *YAWN.*




Excellent response.


----------



## insein (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> No, I support the troops, they are doing NOTHING illegal. The threat they are facing, really IS their enemy, OUR enemy.
> They have every right to protect themselves. Its very understandable with the threat they are facing..
> They were/are fighting thousands and thousands of enemies in fallujah, large groups of enemies. These are MAJOR threats.
> Even when a little kid picks up an AK and our soldier shoots him, only to find out it was just a piece of an ak, garbage. I don't blame our soldier for what he did.
> ...



You tell me.  Your the one saying that their actions are illegal.  I never said the war was illegal.  By saying the "War is illegal" your saying that all those who take part in this war are criminals.  If you feel that something is a crime, then are the people that commit said crime not criminals?


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

Insein 





> By saying the "War is illegal" your saying that all those who take part in this war are criminals.


 This is where you and I part thinking. Maybe this is how you think of illegal wars. 
 But how the hell is a marine supposted to do something illegal if hes following procedure. 



> Your the one saying that their actions are illegal.


No im not, the troops are doing everything perfectly legal, doing their job, killing our enemies.


----------



## Hagbard Celine (Sep 22, 2005)

The troops are following orders.  If they didn't follow them, they'd be thrown in the slammer or dishonorly discharged.

They can't be held responsible for starting this war!  

The ones responsible are those in the Bush administration who bought American support for this war with doctored intelligence reports!  Nothing they've said about Iraq has been true!  Nothing!!!

I definately SUPPORT THE TROOPS.  Call me "pro-life."  What are these guys dying for?  To bring "democracy" to a bunch of people who will throw it away as soon as we leave?  The government is throwing these people's lives away!  I say bring them home with all their limbs so that they can live happy lives and enjoy their right to freedom as Americans!


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 22, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> The troops are following orders.  If they didn't follow them, they'd be thrown in the slammer or dishonorly discharged.
> 
> They can't be held responsible for starting this war!
> 
> ...



They are killing people who want to kill you--how damn simple does it need to be spelled out for you?


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> The troops are following orders.  If they didn't follow them, they'd be thrown in the slammer or dishonorly discharged.
> 
> They can't be held responsible for starting this war!



How telling, I bet most of these dittoheads would blame our troops if republicans believed they were in an illegal war.


----------



## Hagbard Celine (Sep 22, 2005)

No, they're killing people who want to kill THEM.  They're fighting insurgents who think our soldiers are occupying their country numbnuts!  They're Ba'ath party left overs.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 22, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> No, they're killing people who want to kill THEM.  They're fighting insurgents who think our soldiers are occupying their country numbnuts!  They're Ba'ath party left overs.



One of those who doesn't even believe after all of the planned and foiled attacks on the US, HUH?


----------



## Hagbard Celine (Sep 22, 2005)

Hey!  Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11 man.  It was al-Qaeda.  Instead Bush has got our military bogged down in Baghdad fighting Ba'ath party insurgents.  So don't give me that self-righteous crap about not being 'informed' and "I'm more patriotic than you are."  Because that's pure garbage.  If Bush had wanted to "foil" an attack on this country as you put it, he could've read the intelligence memo that was put on his desk saying "Bin Laden determined to attack inside US" instead of going on vacation to his dude ranch.

 :nine:


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 22, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> Hey!  Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11 man.  It was al-Qaeda.  Instead Bush has got our military bogged down in Baghdad fighting Ba'ath party insurgents.  So don't give me that self-righteous crap about not being 'informed' and "I'm more patriotic than you are."  Because that's pure garbage.  If Bush had wanted to "foil" an attack on this country as you put it, he could've read the intelligence memo that was put on his desk saying "Bin Laden determined to attack inside US" instead of going on vacation to his dude ranch.
> 
> :nine:



I never said I was more informed nor more patriotic----I am simply more realistic than you are. We are fighting people who hate the west. They want to overthrow Saudi Arabia and blackmail the entire world with oil and use all the profits for weapons to kill more westerners.


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

I thought everyone wanted to overthrow saudi arabia! torturous dictatorships with the potential for wmds are our enemies.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> I have to protect my own.



If those are "your own," I have misjudged you, and you can have them.  They represent the left well.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2005)

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Buh-bye?  LOL.
> 
> Your disregard is shown in how you speak to and treat veterans, I have seen your "high regard" as represented by your true actions and wish to have none of it.



High regard?  She sounds like a typical, condescending officer's wife that wears HIS rank on her sleeve to me.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> I thought everyone wanted to overthrow saudi arabia! torturous dictatorships with the potential for wmds are our enemies.



We are protecting the dictatorship to protect the worlds oil supply. If the Wahhabists get the control of the oil everyones life will suck.


----------



## theim (Sep 22, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> Hey!  Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11 man.  It was al-Qaeda.  Instead Bush has got our military bogged down in Baghdad fighting Ba'ath party insurgents.  So don't give me that self-righteous crap about not being 'informed' and "I'm more patriotic than you are."  Because that's pure garbage.  If Bush had wanted to "foil" an attack on this country as you put it, he could've read the intelligence memo that was put on his desk saying "Bin Laden determined to attack inside US" instead of going on vacation to his dude ranch.
> 
> :nine:



He is more informed and patriotic than you are.

This is the last time I am going to try explaining to you why we went to war. Since you are incapable of reading, perhaps a picture will do:


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

theim said:
			
		

> He is more informed and patriotic than you are.
> 
> This is the last time I am going to try explaining to you why we went to war. Since you are incapable of reading, perhaps a picture will do:



_TROOPS: *NOTHING* ILLEGAL
THE DECISION OF WAR: *ILLEGAL*_

would you blame the troops for someting they have no part in?
Your marines have done NOTHING illegal. Those are OUR enemies down there, i dont disagree with that. Its the decision thats illegal, created by someone far away from troops.
How can you call following military procedures illegal anyway?


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> _*GUNNYL*_, same thing for you.
> 
> TROOPS: NOTHING ILLEGAL
> THE DECISION OF WAR: ILLEGAL
> ...



Dude, you are about THE dumbest troll I've had the misfortune to encounter.

I have never said, nor do I believe the Marines have done anything illegal as it pertains to this topic.  I support them kicking the shit out of everything in the Middle East that shows hostile intent toward them and/or the US.

What you aren't catching onto here is that YOUR opinions are contradictory.  YOU claim the war is immoral; yet, you also claim the Marines are merely defending themselves.

Typical liberal logic -- trying to have your cake and eat it too.

If the war is immoral, so are the actions of US military personnel.  If the war is just, their actions are justified.  You get to choose ONE.  There is no other option.


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 22, 2005)

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Now, not only are you treating the ones you know to be veterans on the site as valueless knuckledraggers thus devaluing your own "support" through negative action, you now have shown that you think that you think that no opinion from a conservative has value either.  That is floccinaucinihilipilification brought to an extreme.
> 
> I gave value to your opinion, I gave respect in my answers throughout the thread and in return we hear that nothing you hear from a conservative will be given value by you?
> 
> That you can string five words together at a time doesn't change the fact that if you truly find all things stated by conservatives as valueless you are simply a troll and will bring nothing of value to the site.  I would hope that you would be above such posturing.  Are you truly wishing to state this, or are you having issues with the idea that words you state and actions you take mean something?



The poster said this to me: _I haven't mentioned a word about your credibility - perhaps you should check the posts again? I merely stated that supporting stupidity makes you look stupid - as in this case._

I was telling him that I accorded no probative value to his calling me stupid.  That's it.  Stop trying to read into my posts.


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 22, 2005)

GunnyL said:
			
		

> If those are "your own," I have misjudged you, and you can have them.  They represent the left well.



Well, I am a liberal, and so are they.  Why would you lump all liberals together?  Are you that small minded?


----------



## theim (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> _TROOPS: *NOTHING* ILLEGAL
> THE DECISION OF WAR: *ILLEGAL*_
> 
> would you blame the troops for someting they have no part in?
> ...




Where are you getting this "Illegal"? Is it suddenly Illegal for the US to go to war? Was World War II illegal? Was Korea illegal?

Obviously Iraq was perfectly legal by US law, since no treaty ended Gulf War I. Who's definition are you using? The UN? The "International Community"?

You would let a bunch of child sex addicts and drug fiends decide what the US can and cannot do.

/dismiss.


----------



## archangel (Sep 22, 2005)

on this board the same month Sept...how much of a coincidence is this...hummm...and all seem to know each other from another board...me thinks Bully imported them on one of his walk abouts! :funnyface


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> Well, I am a liberal, and so are they.  Why would you lump all liberals together?  Are you that small minded?



How am I small minded when it is YOU who lumped yourself together with those two by calling them "your own."


----------



## Shattered (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> Well, I am a liberal, and so are they.  Why would you lump all liberals together?  Are you that small minded?




Umm..  Isn't that what *you* just did when you said you had to defend "your own"???  <i>**scratches head**</i>

You should probably talk less.. ...or dig slower...


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

GunnyL said:
			
		

> I support them kicking the shit out of everything in the Middle East that shows hostile intent toward them and/or the US.
> If the war is immoral, so are the actions of US military personnel.  If the war is just, their actions are justified.  You get to choose ONE.  There is no other option.


You have a few screws loose, let me tighten them.
I agree 100% with your first statement.

 :tng: Your second statement makes it abundantly clear that you are EXACTLY what you hate.
 I am better than that(SORRY!), troops who are trying to protect our nation will NEVER be immoral, only the people who send them in.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> You have a few screws loose, let me tighten them.
> I agree 100% with your first statement.
> 
> :tng: Your second statement makes it abundantly clear that you are EXACTLY what you hate.
> I am better than that(SORRY!), troops who are trying to protect our nation will NEVER be immoral, only the people who send them in.



The screw loose is YOU.  You haven't the ability to think logically.  Your argument contradicts itself, period.  

But you just live in your little fantasy world believing that screwy shit.


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

GunnyL said:
			
		

> The screw loose is YOU.  You haven't the ability to think logically.  Your argument contradicts itself, period.
> 
> But you just live in your little fantasy world believing that screwy shit.


  awesome! he cant even respond.


----------



## Shattered (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> awesome! he cant even respond.


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

Jerk, you have no reasoning for that. I hope you get yours. Now im back to zero. 
7 to 2 everyone!!!! Seven people want me out, zero aint bad i guess.

Now onto more important matters...


----------



## Shattered (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Jerk, you have no reasoning for that. I hope you get yours.
> 
> Now onto more important matters...



None?  Have you *read* your own posts prior to submission?


----------



## Said1 (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Jerk, you have no reasoning for that. I hope you get yours.
> 
> Now onto more important matters...



It's a smilie, she didn't actually *hit* you, dweeb. Try being a little _less_ thin skinned.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Jerk, you have no reasoning for that. I hope you get yours.
> 
> Now onto more important matters...



Hey asshat, you don't call princesses jerks.  WTF is wrong with your dumb ass?

And it isn't that I can't respond, it's more like What's the point?  You're an idiot and a troll and your argument has no more credibility today than it did yesterday.

Do everyone a favor and go play on I-10.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2005)

Said1 said:
			
		

> It's a smilie, she didn't actually *hit* you, dweeb. Try being a little _less_ thin skinned.



thin skinned?  I was thinking psychotic.


----------



## Said1 (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> awesome! he cant even respond.




You're the one whow failed to answer....again, squirt.


----------



## Shattered (Sep 22, 2005)

Said1 said:
			
		

> It's a smilie, she didn't actually *hit* you, dweeb. Try being a little _less_ thin skinned.



No, but I did ding him for a series of idiotic posts..


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

You did. anyone have proper response yet? princesses? anyone?


----------



## Shattered (Sep 22, 2005)

GunnyL said:
			
		

> Hey asshat, you don't call princesses jerks.  WTF is wrong with your dumb ass?
> 
> And it isn't that I can't respond, it's more like What's the point?  You're an idiot and a troll and your argument has no more credibility today than it did yesterday.
> 
> Do everyone a favor and go play on I-10.



He doesn't know I'm a princess.. Only you do.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I know.. I know.. Girl germs


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> No, I support the troops, they are doing NOTHING illegal.



But if they are fighting an illegal war, they are complicit in the illegality..  We all know from "A Few Good Men"  that soldiers can disobey unlawful orders.


----------



## Said1 (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> You did. anyone have proper response yet? princesses? anyone?



Respond to what?


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> You did. anyone have proper response yet? princesses? anyone?



You got proper responses.  You just don't know what to do with them.  Perhaps you should start on out on the Romper Room board and learn how this works.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2005)

Shattered said:
			
		

> He doesn't know I'm a princess.. Only you do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 :bat: none of that smoochie stuff ....


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> But if they are fighting an illegal war, they are complicit in the illegality..  We all know from "A Few Good Men"  that soldiers can disobey unlawful orders.


No they are not complicit, they are TRYING to protect us. There is much honor in that.
The troops are not getting illegal orders. "Go sweep this town for enemy insurgents" Is not an unlawful statement.


-EDIT-
By your logic, if the troops got sent to canada to take their natural resources. 
The troops would be at fault? I dont think so.


----------



## Shattered (Sep 22, 2005)

GunnyL said:
			
		

> :bat: none of that smoochie stuff ....



That was no smoochie. That was a hug.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> No they are not complicit, they are TRYING to protect us. There is much honor in that.
> The troops are not getting illegal orders. "Go sweep this town for enemy insurgents" Is not an unlawful statement.



Guess what, stain,  the bush administration and congressional supporters are trying to protect us too, and there is much honor in that as well.

Your debate skills are sucking.


----------



## Said1 (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> No they are not complicit, they are TRYING to protect us. There is much honor in that.
> The troops are not getting illegal orders. "Go sweep this town for enemy insurgents" Is not an unlawful statement.




If the war is illegal/immoral, so is "sweeping this town for insurgents".


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 22, 2005)

Said1 said:
			
		

> If the war is illegal/immoral, so is "sweeping this town for insurgents".



boo yah!


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Guess what, stain,  the bush administration and congressional supporters are trying to protect us too, and there is much honor in that as well.
> 
> Your debate skills are sucking.



They're reasons for going to war may or may not be candid, but the road they took to get there, was highly illegal.


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

Said1 said:
			
		

> If the war is illegal/immoral, so is "sweeping this town for insurgents".


No its not! those are ENEMY insurgents, they could launch many attacks from that city. We must sweep to protect our troops.


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

Don't even talk to me Shattered, i just cant believe you did that.

-edit- oops


----------



## Shattered (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Don't even talk to me Said1, i just cant believe you did that.



OMG, NO!  What did she do?  We'll have her drawn and quartered, for sure.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Don't even talk to me Said1, i just cant believe you did that.



can you believe this?


----------



## Said1 (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> No its not! those are ENEMY insurgents, they could launch many attacks from that city. We must sweep to protect our troops.



Oh, so they're there to smoke out large amounts of terrorists condensed in one area. I get it. Ticky. Is that legal? 

Also, if the US tries to mess with our oil, they answer to China, since they own most of it.   :gross2:


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

I meant shattered, gimme time to correct myself before you drop a steamy one on my lap.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> No its not! those are ENEMY insurgents, they could launch many attacks from that city. We must sweep to protect our troops.



And we must dominate the middleast to stop terrorism and protect non muslims around the world.  Don't mention it, knob.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> No its not! those are ENEMY insurgents, they could launch many attacks from that city. We must sweep to protect our troops.



Straining that 8th grade education, are you?  And the left side of your slip is showing calling murdering fanatical religious nutcases "insurgents."

Insurgents wage war against ARMIES.  Murdering scumbag terrorists wage war against their own populations.


----------



## Shattered (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> I meant shattered, gimme time to correct myself before you drop a steamy one on my lap.



Oh, hell.  Now we have to have ME drawn and quartered?  Damn.  Whatever will I do..  :fifty: 

<i>**hides behind Gunny**</i>


----------



## Said1 (Sep 22, 2005)

Shattered said:
			
		

> OMG, NO!  What did she do?  We'll have her drawn and quartered, for sure.



He meant vous.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2005)

Shattered said:
			
		

> Oh, hell.  Now we have to have ME drawn and quartered?  Damn.  Whatever will I do..  :fifty:
> 
> <i>**hides behind Gunny**</i>



You took points from Yahoo Serious?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> They're reasons for going to war may or may not be candid, but the road they took to get there, was highly illegal.




did you say something?


----------



## Shattered (Sep 22, 2005)

GunnyL said:
			
		

> You took points from Yahoo Serious?



Why?  Did you want them?


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

Are the kids done playing?!?!? the adults need to talk!


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Are the kids done playing?!?!? the adults need to talk!



I don't know,  are you done?


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2005)

Shattered said:
			
		

> Why?  Did you want them?



His points?  No thanks.  ANy that he had were from partisan hacks, not for any point HE made.  I'm STILL waiting for that to happen.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Are the kids done playing?!?!? the adults need to talk!



You parents are sending you to bed?


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

Maybe its my pic, kinda threatening, gun in your face. oops!

can i have my points back? thaaanks


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Maybe its my pic, kinda threatening, gun in your face. oops!
> 
> can i have my points back? thaaanks



Do you even understand how the points work, junior?


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

no but damn i need a few. this night crew is extreme.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> no but damn i need a few. this night crew is extreme.



The points are gone.  You can't "have them back."  If you go to the top lefthand corner of the screen you will see user CP.  It will show you who gave you points, and who taketh them away.

You get points for an outstanding post.  You lose points for being a dolt.  Simple as that.


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

Much appreciated. Carry on.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Much appreciated. Carry on.



Carry on?


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

-edit- but seriously, carry on. smacking me, insulting me, kicking my ass etc, while i go get a beer.


----------



## insein (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Insein  This is where you and I part thinking. Maybe this is how you think of illegal wars.
> But how the hell is a marine supposted to do something illegal if hes following procedure.
> 
> No im not, the troops are doing everything perfectly legal, doing their job, killing our enemies.




So whats the problem?  They are killing our enemies and defending our country.  How is anything wrong then?

As for not blaming the soldiers for what you deem to be an illegal war, here is the contract they must sign.  You must have adobe acrobat in order to read the enlistment contract.

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/enlistment.pdf

Refer to section *C Partial Statement of Existing United States Laws.*  Under this section, the terms of the contract are clearly stated to the applicant.  Refer to Section C, Subsection 9, Paragraph a, sentence 4.  



> a. My enlistment is more than an employment agreement.  As a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, i will be:
> 
> (4) Required upon order to serve in combat or other hazardous situations.



Every member of the Armed Forces is required to sign this form before enlisting.  If the applicant does not agree with these terms, then they do not sign the contract.  They are not forced to sign the contract.  They are not coerced into signing the contract.  The military is very particular in making sure that those who sign these contracts completely and thouroughly understand what they mean.  This is a neccessity in the lawyer society we live in.  

So i ask again, how is it that you still think these soldiers are innocent of your illegal war?


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

insein said:
			
		

> So whats the problem?  They are killing our enemies and defending our country.  How is anything wrong then?
> 
> As for not blaming the soldiers for what you deem to be an illegal war, here is the contract they must sign.  You must have adobe acrobat in order to read the enlistment contract.
> 
> ...


Killing our enemies fine, and sure you can think that they are defending our country. thats fine. Our military is doing a fabulous job!
Im talking about a different branch of the US government, the administration and its illegal process of going to war.
Putting whole CIA operations at risk, they've even admitted that a TOP admin official has committed _TREASON_, punishable by _DEATH_.


whats this got to do with anything?
(4) Required upon order to serve in combat or other hazardous situations.
They should get more hazard combat pay...the 30% of the troops over there are paramilitary, they get thousands per day!!


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Killing our enemies fine, and sure you can think that they are defending our country. thats fine. Our military is doing a fabulous job!
> Im talking about a different branch of the US government, the administration and its illegal process of going to war.
> Putting whole CIA operations at risk, they've even admitted that a TOP admin official has committed _TREASON_, punishable by _DEATH_.
> 
> ...



Anyone passing out the tinfoil hats?


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

HELLO! 





> President George W Bush, regarding the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity to Robert Novak: "I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. I don't have any idea."



And you didn't know a HUGE amount of our forces down there are paramilitary? Wwwow.


----------



## Said1 (Sep 22, 2005)

Here's a great link: http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html

In it you will find all UN Security Council Resolutons pertaining to Iraq, dating back to 1966. You will also find UNSC condemnations of Iraq for violating the Ceasefire Agreement and "No-Fly Zone" restrictions. Interesting stuff, check it out.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> HELLO!
> 
> And you didn't know a HUGE amount of our forces down there are paramilitary? Wwwow.



Are you answering your invisible friend, or answering responses you imagine for me?


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2005)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Here's a great link: http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html
> 
> In it you will find all UN Security Council Resolutons pertaining to Iraq, dating back to 1966. You will also find UNSC condemnations of Iraq for violating the Ceasefire Agreement and "No-Fly Zone" restrictions. Interesting stuff, check it out.



This dude isn't interested in learning anything.  He doesn't respond to anything.  He miconstrues whatever is said and posts something unconnected in response, and theinks he's a genius.

Now he's on some paramilitary kick out of the blue, after he posted his conspiracies.

You can play with him.  I'm going to bed.


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

Ya that resolution stuff is ALL over the 'liberal media', ive read it.

You used the tinfoil hat routine on me, and showed how incorrect you are in that issertion.

are you really a gunny?


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

HA! This is tinfoil hat central! The reason im here is because you guys are in outerspaceee


----------



## Said1 (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Ya that resolution stuff is ALL over the 'liberal media', ive read it.
> 
> You used the tinfoil hat routine on me, and showed how incorrect you are in that issertion.
> 
> are you really a gunny?



You are familiar with all resolutions and agreements pertaining to Iraq???

You were incorrect about the no-fly zones in another thread (I corrected you of course), perhaps a re-cap is in order?


----------



## xen (Sep 22, 2005)

Said1 said:
			
		

> You are familiar with all resolutions and agreements pertaining to Iraq???
> 
> You were incorrect about the no-fly zones in another thread (I corrected you of course), perhaps a re-cap is in order?


Ya you probly were.


----------



## insein (Sep 22, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> HA! This is tinfoil hat central! The reason im here is because you guys are in outerspaceee




Well it only took 4 or 5 pages but we've firmly established whatever already believed.


----------



## manu1959 (Sep 22, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> Everytime I see pictures of *anti-war protestors*, I see those who support the war holding signs that say, "Support Our Troops."
> 
> Can someone please explain to me why people assume that just because
> someone does not support the war that it means that person also does not
> ...



protesting the war is different than simply not supporting the war.....war protesters give hope to the opposistion 

north vietnam's most powerful weapon was the US media and the war protesters

i fear that one day the terrorists of the world will kill the US media and the war protesters that have fought along side them as the terrorists simply want the west and all it stands for eliminated.


----------



## Abbey Normal (Sep 23, 2005)

GunnyL said:
			
		

> Anyone passing out the tinfoil hats?




Here ya go, Gunny. One for our wacky new member, little sis and dad.


----------



## manu1959 (Sep 23, 2005)

Abbey Normal said:
			
		

> Here ya go, Gunny. One for our wacky new member, little sis and dad.




someone should wire them together and plug them in


----------



## Hagbard Celine (Sep 23, 2005)

What's up with the guys in the tin foil hats?  Are those conservatives protecting themselves from the "vast liberal media conspiracy"?    



> Where are you getting this "Illegal"? Is it suddenly Illegal for the US to go to war? Was World War II illegal? Was Korea illegal?



It's illegal to invade a sovereign country for no reason other than preemption man.  Invading a country on the basis of preemption, especially when there is no solid intellegence to prove a threat, is like punching somebody because they MIGHT look at you the wrong way.  Saddam didn't attack Pearl Harbor or threaten to spread Communism to South Korea.  The containment strategy was going fine until we swooped in and destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure causing a vacuum of lawlessness for terrorists and insurgents to breed in like a giant festering petri dish.


----------



## kurtsprincess (Sep 23, 2005)

GunnyL said:
			
		

> The points are gone.  You can't "have them back."  If you go to the top lefthand corner of the screen you will see user CP.  It will show you who gave you points, and who taketh them away.
> 
> You get points for an outstanding post.  You lose points for being a dolt.  Simple as that.



Touche'. :clap1:


----------



## insein (Sep 23, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> What's up with the guys in the tin foil hats?  Are those conservatives protecting themselves from the "vast liberal media conspiracy"?
> 
> 
> 
> It's illegal to invade a sovereign country for no reason other than preemption man.  Invading a country on the basis of preemption, especially when there is no solid intellegence to prove a threat, is like punching somebody because they MIGHT look at you the wrong way.  Saddam didn't attack Pearl Harbor or threaten to spread Communism to South Korea.  The containment strategy was going fine until we swooped in and destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure causing a vacuum of lawlessness for terrorists and insurgents to breed in like a giant festering petri dish.



Yes the containment strategy was working great.  It was working so great that Iraq was a breeding ground for terrorists before we ever returned there. 

Terror Camps Supported by Baghdad and Tehran before the invasion by the US. 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,779359,00.html

Numerous Al Queda-Iraq connections
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

Debka, a reputable Info site that specializes in Middle Eastern News, Announced that prior to the invasion, Iraq had been shipping WMD's to syria
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=482

Summit Held in IRaq for top AL Queda member for possible 9/11 planning.  Even if it wasnt for 9/11 planning, what is a top Al queda member doing in Iraq if Saddam is "contained" as you put it?  Guess he just wanted to have him over for a beer.  
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005133

Now i know your not accustomed to "evidence" to support YOUR claims, but i suggest you read these links and try to evaluate your opinion.


----------



## theim (Sep 23, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> What's up with the guys in the tin foil hats?  Are those conservatives protecting themselves from the "vast liberal media conspiracy"?
> 
> 
> 
> It's illegal to invade a sovereign country for no reason other than preemption man.  Invading a country on the basis of preemption, especially when there is no solid intellegence to prove a threat, is like punching somebody because they MIGHT look at you the wrong way.  Saddam didn't attack Pearl Harbor or threaten to spread Communism to South Korea.  The containment strategy was going fine until we swooped in and destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure causing a vacuum of lawlessness for terrorists and insurgents to breed in like a giant festering petri dish.



Lemme tell you something, "man". Who cares if its illegal by International Law (I'm assuming, you never did answer my question after all). If our safety is at stake, anything is legal. What the hell are those blue-helmetted UN pussies gonna do? Remember that.

Again, your value of stability over human rights is dead-on leftist.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 23, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> I was telling him that I accorded no probative value to his calling me stupid.  That's it.  Stop trying to read into my posts.



I wasn't "reading into" your posts, but I was reading your posts.  That post was clear, "You are conservative, your opinion has not probative value to me."

The fact that words and actions have meaning seems to be unclear to you.  That you, in anger, stated a truth of your thought processes is clear.

Oh and by the way, stop attempting to give me orders and simply answer it more clearly.  Your statement didn't say, "I don't care if you call me stupid." It said, "I don't believe anything that conservatives say so your opinion in this matter is not worth spit."  Either you don't believe anything that conservatives say, or you do (probably occassionally much as I feel about Liberals) and you said something in anger that you don't believe.  Which is it?


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 23, 2005)

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> I wasn't "reading into" your posts, but I was reading your posts.  That post was clear, "You are conservative, your opinion has not probative value to me."
> 
> The fact that words and actions have meaning seems to be unclear to you.  That you, in anger, stated a truth of your thought processes is clear.
> 
> Oh and by the way, stop attempting to give me orders and simply answer it more clearly.  Your statement didn't say, "I don't care if you call me stupid." It said, "I don't believe anything that conservatives say so your opinion in this matter is not worth spit."  Either you don't believe anything that conservatives say, or you do (probably occassionally much as I feel about Liberals) and you said something in anger that you don't believe.  Which is it?



Please provide me with the post to which you are referring.  I don't remember saying that because I don't think that way.  My 3 siblings are conservatives, and I listen to what they have to say, and I agree with them at times.

What's up with being so hostile? This is just a message board, and I am a stranger to you.

Ah, vote, I found the post: _If I cared about the person making the statement, I might see a problem. But both of you are conservatives, who like to twist my words around, and so I accord your assessment NO probative value whatsoever._

Okay, I can see why you drew the conclusion you did.  I was addressing the twisting of my words--that is what I don't give any probative value to because the conclusion he had drawn based upon what I said was incorrect (since that's not what I said).

Does that sentence even make sense?


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> You have a few screws loose, let me tighten them.
> I agree 100% with your first statement.
> 
> :tng: Your second statement makes it abundantly clear that you are EXACTLY what you hate.
> I am better than that(SORRY!), troops who are trying to protect our nation will NEVER be immoral, only the people who send them in.



This is disingenuous at the face value of it.  It disregards the ability of the people in the armed forces to maintain a set of morals beyond, "Follow Orders!"  In the past the I was following orders excuse has not excused actions considered illegal.  If the war is illegal moral indicators would require that they not follow their orders or they can be prosecuted for their immoral action.  To disregard these people as humans and say, "They are only following orders!" is simply an attempt to dodge the reality of their humanity and disregard the fact that they have their own moral judgement.  This dehumanizes those in the armed forces and assumes an automation that is not there in reality.

Either you think the war and therefore the actions of those that support it immoral or you do not.  Excusing them by denying their basic humanity is not support, it is disregard.


----------



## Shattered (Sep 23, 2005)

PD - You *really* gotta start checking posts.. No1 didn't say you were being stupid.  *I* did.  That's twice in 24 hours you've accused someone of saying something they didn't..  Wake up.  Have some coffee. :cof:


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Are the kids done playing?!?!? the adults need to talk!



So you are saying you want to take your ball and bat and go home now?


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 23, 2005)

Shattered said:
			
		

> PD - You *really* gotta start checking posts.. No1 didn't say you were being stupid.  *I* did.  That's twice in 24 hours you've accused someone of saying something they didn't..  Wake up.  Have some coffee. :cof:



Will you bring it to me with cream and sugar?


----------



## Shattered (Sep 23, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> Will you bring it to me with cream and sugar?



No, but I'm sure you can blame Bush for unnecessary cruelty by way of Conservatism.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 23, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> Please provide me with the post to which you are referring.  I don't remember saying that because I don't think that way.  My 3 siblings are conservatives, and I listen to what they have to say, and I agree with them at times.
> 
> What's up with being so hostile? This is just a message board, and I am a stranger to you.



First of all, I am not hostile, explain in which way I am "hostile" when simply explaining that semantics are important when all you use to communicate are words, like on a message board.

It is this line that I am speaking about:

"But both of you are conservatives, who like to twist my words around, and so I accord your assessment NO probative value whatsoever."

The meaning of the line is clear, "You are conservatives, you enjoy twisting my words, I therefore believe that anything you say is not worth a thing."

That you made it toward two people doesn't change the actual semantics of the sentence.  In that sentence you state that nothing conservatives say has value to you.  Is it what you meant to state or were you saying something in anger that you would like to elaborate on?  Just saying I was mad at those two doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 23, 2005)

Shattered said:
			
		

> No, but I'm sure you can blame Bush for unnecessary cruelty by way of Conservatism.



It's probably better that you not bring me coffee--you may put some poison in it.   

I'm kidding.  I do blame Bush for a lot of things, such as the red wine stain on my carpet.  Is that wrong?


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 23, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> It's probably better that you not bring me coffee--you may put some poison in it.
> 
> I'm kidding.  I do blame Bush for a lot of things, such as the red wine stain on my carpet.  Is that wrong?



Contact the Enquirer, they could use the wine stain as more evidence of Bush's new habit of drinking.


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 23, 2005)

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> First of all, I am not hostile, explain in which way I am "hostile" when simply explaining that semantics are important when all you use to communicate are words, like on a message board.
> 
> It is this line that I am speaking about:
> 
> ...



I posted this above (I found the post and then added it to my answer to you above):

Ah, vote, I found the post: If I cared about the person making the statement, I might see a problem. But both of you are conservatives, who like to twist my words around, and so I accord your assessment NO probative value whatsoever.

Okay, I can see why you drew the conclusion you did. I was addressing the twisting of my words--that is what I don't give any probative value to because the conclusion he had drawn based upon what I said was incorrect (since that's not what I said).  

Does that sentence even make sense?


----------



## Shattered (Sep 23, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> It's probably better that you not bring me coffee--you may put some poison in it.
> 
> I'm kidding.  I do blame Bush for a lot of things, such as the red wine stain on my carpet.  Is that wrong?



Depends...  Are you a total drain on society?  If so, yeah, I might poison you...  Do you take full responsibility for your own lot in life, rather than blaming others?  Then you can probably live..  Your choice.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 23, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> Okay, I can see why you drew the conclusion you did. I was addressing the twisting of my words--that is what I don't give any probative value to because the conclusion he had drawn based upon what I said was incorrect (since that's not what I said).
> 
> Does that sentence even make sense?



Got it.  So you meant to say, "Since you two have twisted my words and disregarded my original meaning I do not value your opinion on my intelligence."  

The part about them being Conservatives has no real value to the sentence, if a Liberal had twisted your words would it make their opinion full of probative value?  That you found it important to state that part of the reason you found their opinion valueless was the fact that they were Conservatives spoke volumes to me.


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 23, 2005)

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Got it.  So you meant to say, "Since you two have twisted my words and disregarded my original meaning I do not value your opinion on my intelligence."
> 
> The part about them being Conservatives has no real value to the sentence, if a Liberal had twisted your words would it make their opinion full of probative value?  That you found it important to state that part of the reason you found their opinion valueless was the fact that they were Conservatives spoke volumes to me.



I really didn't think about my use of the word "conservatives" in that sentence, except that it is a true statement.  It probably relates to the fact that most liberals do not attempt to twist my words around when it comes to my addressing politics (since we usually agree  ).


----------



## trobinett (Sep 23, 2005)

One of the trends that started back in the early 60`s in these United States, that I fine disturbing, is an unwillingness to "follow through", "stay the course", show some amount of that charater trait, that most fine admirable, stick to the job until its DONE.

The country has far too many people, that have grown up with the "cut and run" mentailty.

Want it all now, and don`t want to pay for it.

You can see it all around, a great example is credit card abuse.

We must "stay the course" in our fight againts terror around the world, if not, what we, as a country  enjoy`s most, freedom, will be lost.

Supporting the troops is what is required of a countries citizens, and I know, the troops thank you.

Marching in protest againts what the troops are DOING, is NOT supporting the troops, and only prolongs the war.

It would seem therefore, that those that do both, really put the troops in harms way.

Let`s fianlly put a period on this, and move on by showing a solid front to those that use terror to achive their ends.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 23, 2005)

trobinett said:
			
		

> One of the trends that started back in the early 60`s in these United States, that I fine disturbing, is an unwillingness to "follow through", "stay the course", show some amount of that charater trait, that most fine admirable, stick to the job until its DONE.
> 
> The country has far too many people, that have grown up with the "cut and run" mentailty.
> 
> ...



That's be fine, but lefties really want America to fail.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 23, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> I really didn't think about my use of the word "conservatives" in that sentence, except that it is a true statement.  It probably relates to the fact that most liberals do not attempt to twist my words around when it comes to my addressing politics (since we usually agree  ).




Yeah. Well.  They possess the same malformed memes.


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> This is disingenuous at the face value of it.  It disregards the ability of the people in the armed forces to maintain a set of morals beyond, "Follow Orders!"  In the past the I was following orders excuse has not excused actions considered illegal.  If the war is illegal moral indicators would require that they not follow their orders or they can be prosecuted for their immoral action.  To disregard these people as humans and say, "They are only following orders!" is simply an attempt to dodge the reality of their humanity and disregard the fact that they have their own moral judgement.  This dehumanizes those in the armed forces and assumes an automation that is not there in reality.
> 
> Either you think the war and therefore the actions of those that support it immoral or you do not.  Excusing them by denying their basic humanity is not support, it is disregard.



Why must everyone here insist that everything is a black and white issue?
Its SO obvious that the troops are not even part of the issue, they are doing nothing illegal and are killing our enemies.
Bush supporters are saying if _' IF the war is illegal, then the troops are doing something illegal too'._ THIS is a tragic idea and the whole reich wing should be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Why must everyone here insist that everything is a black and white issue?
> Its SO obvious that the troops are not even part of the issue, they are doing nothing illegal and are killing our enemies.



Because the only way that they could be doing nothing illegal is if the war itself is not illegal.  Choosing to participate in an illegal activity is in itself illegal.  Saying that "they have no choice" or "they are just following orders" dehumanizes them as automatons with no access to moral values of their own.  Either they are choosing to participate in an (as described by you) illegal action or they are not, there is no in between in this case unless you dehumanize those that choose to actively participate in that action.

Once again, it is tragic to disregard those who serve as even human enough to judge the morality of the action in which they participate.  Even the courts do not do this and you will be tried for illegal activity during a war, it is only people that want to "support the troops but not the war" that do such things to people that are in the service.



> Bush supporters are saying if _' IF the war is illegal, then the troops are doing something illegal too'._ THIS is a tragic idea and the whole reich wing should be ashamed of themselves.


LOL.  "reich wing".  There is no more positive sign that somebody has drank the kool-aid than such a denigrating and dehumanizing statement such as that and comparing all people who might agree with the war as "nazis".  

It is always amazing to me that people would attempt to dehumanize their fellow citizens in such a way as if they were an enemy, not just of a different opinion and object to dehumanizing an actual enemy as if they were an ally.  Actions speak volumes to your actual meaning and whom you actually consider to be an enemy or an ally.


----------



## dmp (Sep 23, 2005)

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Because the only way that they could be doing nothing illegal is if the war itself is not illegal.  Choosing to participate in an illegal activity is in itself illegal.  Saying that "they have no choice" or "they are just following orders" dehumanizes them as automatons with no access to moral values of their own.  Either they are choosing to participate in an (as described by you) illegal action or they are not, there is no in between in this case unless you dehumanize those that choose to actively participate in that action.
> 
> Once again, it is tragic to disregard those who serve as even human enough to judge the morality of the action in which they participate.  Even the courts do not do this and you will be tried for illegal activity during a war, it is only people that want to "support the troops but not the war" that do such things to people that are in the service.
> 
> ...


----------



## Zhukov (Sep 23, 2005)

Well, this thread has come along way in my absence.



			
				ProudDem said:
			
		

> I do not support the cause of this war.  We were told that Saddam Hussein was making WMDs and that we could not wait any longer to take him out.  He was a danger to the world and a danger to us.  And we should take him out before it's too late.  He reminds us of how vulnerable we were on September 11th.


All of which the majority of people in the know believed at the time.



> So our soldiers run in there, without enough troops I might add,


Your opinion.



> and they're able to take Saddam out of there very quickly.


How do you figure?  He was out of power in a month, captured within seven, what more do you want?



> Therefore, I don't appreciate our soldiers getting killed over there for NOTHING.  I know Saddam was a horrible dictator and that we are doing the Iraqis some good; however, that is not enough reason for us to go in there.


I really don't think you understand what's going on.  Well first of all, you think the President exaggerated, and that's your main opposition to the war?  Did you oppose the war before we went in, or only after a certain length of time elapsed without finding stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons?  Hypothetically, if they found that Saddam smuggled weapons into Syria, would that change your mind?  I'm not going to throw up links to articles about people who think that happened, I'm just curious, if tommorow Syria fessed up and undug the thousands of barrels of nerve gas Saddam passed to them at the begining of the invasion would that matter to you?

But when I say I don't think you know what's going on is that you seem to have a very narrow view about what the Iraq war is all about, because Iraq is just the most visible battle in the global war.

We get people who come in here all the time (some have posted in this thread) who say, 'Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11, al-Qaeda did', or say 'we should be going after the leaders not wasting time in Iraq', or say 'well most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, why don't we attack them?'

People who say 'Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11, al-Qaeda did' misunderstand who the enemy is.

People who say 'should be going after the leaders not wasting time in Iraq' underestimate our capability.

People who say 'well most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, why don't we attack them' are ignorant of our strategy.

The enemy is not the 19 guys who attacked us on 9/11, nor is it the one group that organized the attack.  The enemy is every fascist moslem who seeks the downfall of the US, every disgruntled moslem who follows the fascists, and every two-bit dictator who provides some form of aid to the fascists.  That is _alot_ of people.  It includes Kim and Fidel, al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, a handful of other dictators, several terrorist organizations, and maybe hundreds of thousands of otherwise average people.

The enemy has many faces, all of which need to be addressed in a seperate fashion.  In order to not be forced to kill the hundreds of thousands of otherwise average people (after all, we could just nuke everyone, like they would us if given the oppourtunity, but we are the good guys) we need to show them not only that their leaders are wrong and going to lose, but that there is another way for them to live their lives that doesn't involve killing innocent people.  *That's* what Iraq is all about.  It's about showing our enemies if you think you can snub your nose at us, conspire to attack us or conspire with forces that wish to destroy us, and brutalize your people we are going to take you out.  Iraq was a message to the two-bit dictators.

The only problem with it was all the complaining from the U.S. and Europe about it.  Sure, it scared them at first, Ghadafi shit himself, the Iranians got real quiet, Kim protested but it sounded more like a frightened animal than a strong affronted enemy.  Then something happened.  People over here started bitching and moaning.  Not alot of people by any means, but their voices were amplified by a media that agreed.  France complained, it was amplified as if France's opinion were important.  Cracks in the armor, and the two-bits saw it.  Iran is now blatantly saying their going to proceed with their nuclear ambitions, North Korea is demanding a nuclear reactor again, Fidel and Hugo are getting all chummy.  The psychological impact of Iraq is being squandered.

As for our capabilities, we still have nearly 20,000 troops in Afghanistan 'going after the leaders', along with other NATO forces, but most people seem to conveniently forget that when it comes time to enumerate the reasons why 'Iraq was bad', as if every soldier in the US military was now wandering aimlessly around Baghdad getting shot.

Our intelligence, in conjuction with intelligence agencies around the world, are constantly arresting people.

But you don't see that, and you won't see that.

Most everything you see is the most visible aspect of this war, and that is Iraq, and despite all the spin, we won the war, we are kicking the shit out of both domestic thugs and foreign terrorists there, and the Iraqis are stepping up to take over for us so we can leave.



> When I read the newspaper and it has articles about another burial at Arlington Cemetery, it upsets me because I care about them.  I see the number of soldiers that are dead increasing regularly.  This bothers me.


It bothers anyone with a heart and a soul.  Do you think it doesn't bother people who disagree with you about the war?  Do you really think it doesn't bother the President.  The only difference is some people believe the sacrifice is necessary.

Emotion can't be an obstacle to action when action is necessary.



> May I pass on this right now?  I don't have the energy to come up with a thoughtful answer.



Whenever you feel like it, but one might hope that it would involve a better future for all the innocent people involved.



> We can agree to disagree.


I don't agree to that.


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Because the only way that they could be doing nothing illegal is if the war itself is not illegal.  Choosing to participate in an illegal activity is in itself illegal.  Saying that "they have no choice" or "they are just following orders" dehumanizes them as automatons with no access to moral values of their own.  Either they are choosing to participate in an (as described by you) illegal action or they are not, there is no in between in this case unless you dehumanize those that choose to actively participate in that action.
> 
> Once again, it is tragic to disregard those who serve as even human enough to judge the morality of the action in which they participate.  Even the courts do not do this and you will be tried for illegal activity during a war, it is only people that want to "support the troops but not the war" that do such things to people that are in the service.
> 
> ...



Oooh, nice..
Okay let me put it this way:
 I don't believe they are participating in any illegal activity. Taking control of a Iraq to protect our country is not illegal, the military is doing a great job. OOH RAH!
The path taken by civilian leadership is my problem, the path to this war was illegal, not the war itself..._there will always be bad people and people who hate you in this world, no matter how many of them you kill, you either CHOOSE to fight them forever, or you have a fruitful nation._
Its not cool to think that ANYONE on the left or right would be considering our troops inhuman. They ARE us.

can i ask you as question though? 
Why would YOU blame the troops for participating in wars started for the wrong reasons? _What could they do thats illegal?_


Reich?
Yep,  I DO believe this administration is the fourth reich. Not even sorry for saying it. 
The same money/power that leeched onto the german people, brainwashed them and enabled them to become their worst. 
Is and has always been around. Its now looting our nation of every single thing we hold dear.
Just look at alaska now. The WHOLE world values this natural treasure, and we are going to let the oil dogs get a sample to save a pence?
 Its totally unamerican.
This is why your ideology makes you apologetic to big business all the time!


----------



## dmp (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> the path to this war was illegal




What makes you think that?


----------



## Hagbard Celine (Sep 23, 2005)

> So our soldiers run in there, without enough troops I might add,
> 
> Your opinion.



Hey!  What a coincidence!  It's also the opinion of all our generals in Iraq!

The snoodiness of this remark "Your opinion." is outrageous.  You're Goddamned right it's his opinion!  Opinions matter in a democracy.  Unfortunately, 48 percent of American's opinions aren't represented by a federal government that has a Conservative Legislature, Judiciary and Executive branch!


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Oooh, nice..
> Okay let me put it this way:
> I don't believe they are participating in any illegal activity. Taking control of a Iraq to protect our country is not illegal, the military is doing a great job. OOH RAH!
> The path taken by civilian leadership is my problem, the path to this war was illegal, not the war itself..._there will always be bad people and people who hate you in this world, no matter how many of them you kill, you either CHOOSE to fight them forever, or you have a fruitful nation._
> Its not cool to think that ANYONE on the left or right would be considering our troops inhuman. They ARE us.


The path to the war was not illegal.  Iraq had violated cease fire agreements which by international law is a declaration of war.  We brought a war to a nation that had already declared war on ours.



> can i ask you as question though?
> Why would YOU blame the troops for participating in wars started for the wrong reasons? _What could they do thats illegal?_



I would not absolve people of moral obligation just because they are troops, such absolution dehumanizes any human as it is the obligation of all humans to act morally.  If a war is unjustified, it is unjustified regardless of their status as troops.  If an illegal order is given it is the moral duty of all serving not to follow the order.



> Reich?
> Yep,  I DO believe this administration is the fourth reich. Not even sorry for saying it.
> The same money/power that leeched onto the german people, brainwashed them and enabled them to become their worst.
> Is and has always been around. Its now looting our nation of every single thing we hold dear.
> ...


You have no idea what my ideology is.  My ideology is not "for" big business, it is "for" the individual.  You have made an assumption that you cannot back up with any data.  For about the fifth time since you began posting I will once again tell you that I am not a Republican.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 23, 2005)

Xen, you're basically saying that our poor little troops are just slaves to this evil administration and cannot do anything about it.  Do you have any idea what the re-enlistment rate is?  It's astronomical because the soldiers aren't little slaves to the administration who have to go along with this "illegal" war because they have no choice.  The majority of them *support* the war, and those who didn't before are, at the very least, completely and totally against the cutting and running you seem to want.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Sep 23, 2005)

This thread exploded in my absence.


Going back to the start of things, is it possible to support the troops but question the strategy? I think the outcome of the war in Iraq will be a good thing for the country, and as such I'm not as concerned with how we were told it was necesarry or not. The ends, I hope, will justify the means.

I have problems now with the way things are being run. I don't think we have enough troops over there to handle the situation. The terrorist loyalists who resist defeat need to be overwhelmed, and there aren't enough troops there for that.

I guess, going back to the football analogy, I'm not dressing up in the other team's jersey and screaming for them to win... I'm just not happy about the last couple plays that were run by my team, and question whether or not the coach or his assistant coaches have the right game plan.

At no point have I, nor will I, root for the other team, and I'm always supportive of the players, but if the coach continues to call run plays when maybe a pass would work better, that concerns me.

At the end, I realize I'm merely a spectator not involved. As such, there's no way any of us can really know the intelligence and the strategy behind what is going on over there. I can only go off of the appearances, and right now, it  appears as though progress has stalled.

I guess I kind of feel like we thought this might have been easier than it now is, and at times it doesn't always look like there has been careful planning in the long-term scope of the war.

I still want victory, and have no sympathy for the enemy, but is it not possible to support the players while not supporting parts of the playcalling?


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

Sorry i gotta goto work. i KNOW most of you are at work so , GIT R DONE!


----------



## Zhukov (Sep 23, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> Hey!  What a coincidence!  It's also the opinion of all our generals in Iraq!


All, huh, I'm sure you can prove that right?

Fact is it's not the opinion of one very important person, and that's the Secretary of Defense.

He wanted to blow the hell out of the country and leave.  Which is funny because that sounds amazingly like what many who oppose the war now say they wish we _had _ done.



> The snoodiness of this remark "Your opinion." is outrageous.  You're Goddamned right it's [her] opinion!  Opinions matter in a democracy.


The opinions of 'our generals in Iraq' don't matter in a democracy actually.  That's why our military has a civilian leadership.  The civilian leadership was democratically elected.  The civilian leadership determined the troop levels.  Your opinion, her opinion, my opinion, on our civilian leadership was already asked for and received (assuming you two voted; I did, and I didn't vote for the President the first time).  'Your opinion' is a statement of fact.  You read 'snoodiness' in it?  Good for you.



> Unfortunately, 48 percent of American's opinions aren't represented by a federal government that has a Conservative Legislature, Judiciary and Executive branch!


They are represented.  Funny how you disdain the democracy you held out like a shiny beacon of truth two sentences ago.  My dear boy, in a democracy 50%+1 beats 48% everytime.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Sep 23, 2005)

Hobbit said:
			
		

> Xen, you're basically saying that our poor little troops are just slaves to this evil administration and cannot do anything about it.  Do you have any idea what the re-enlistment rate is?  It's astronomical because the soldiers aren't little slaves to the administration who have to go along with this "illegal" war because they have no choice.  The majority of them *support* the war, and those who didn't before are, at the very least, completely and totally against the cutting and running you seem to want.



What is the re-enlistment rate? I'm actually curious to know the retention in the armed forces. All I've heard is that recruitment isn't meeting their goals, but nothing about re-enlists...


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Sep 23, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, 48 percent of American's opinions aren't represented by a federal government that has a Conservative Legislature, Judiciary and Executive branch!



Untrue. Every citizen is a member of the political process. You can't lose the process and then claim it doesn't represent you. Move to Canada if this country doesn't represent you. You might not agree with the end result, but you can't disown it when it doesn't serve your purpose. Well you can, by leaving...

These kind of statements make it so hard for other people to offer opposing viewpoints...


----------



## Zhukov (Sep 23, 2005)

Retention is good.



> Even as they conduct combat operations in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom 3, Task Force Baghdad Soldiers continue to reenlist at rates that top previous goals.



http://www.blackanthem.com/News/military_2005091103.html



> reenlistment in the National Guard is at an all-time high



http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2005/tr20050920-secdef3941.html



> At present, U.S. Army and Marine Corps reenlistment rates are strong.



http://web.krg.org/articles/article_detail.asp?LangNr=12&RubricNr=&ArticleNr=6063&LNNr=28&RNNr=70


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 23, 2005)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> What is the re-enlistment rate? I'm actually curious to know the retention in the armed forces. All I've heard is that recruitment isn't meeting their goals, but nothing about re-enlists...



No official numbers off the top of my head, as most of the legacy media (they're not mainstream anymore) doesn't want to publish them, but I can tell you that I hardly ever hear of people not re-enlisting at least once over there unless they only joined for the college money and tried to dodge actual service in the first place.

As far as criticism, you're fine if you think the war isn't being fought correctly.  I, personally, think we're being too PC and need to take off the kid gloves.  It's guys like xen who like to use buzzwords like "illegal war," "quagmire," and "Nazi" that I have a beef with.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 23, 2005)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> This thread exploded in my absence.
> 
> 
> Going back to the start of things, is it possible to support the troops but question the strategy? I think the outcome of the war in Iraq will be a good thing for the country, and as such I'm not as concerned with how we were told it was necesarry or not. The ends, I hope, will justify the means.
> ...



Nobody is arguing anybody's right to question strategy.  The thread has exploded on the idea that the war itself is illegal and that is entirely different than questioning strategy.  I too think some of the strategy is flawed, that is Arm Chair Quarterbacking and it is done in every capacity of American life and there is nothing wrong with that.  

It was stating the war is illegal, which has been done and what is currently being argued, or immoral then attempting to excuse soldiers participating from any moral obligation of their actions which dehumanizes them and what is currently being discussed, not an objection to the strategy used in fighting the war.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 23, 2005)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> Retention is good.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow, thanks a lot.  You even managed to post these links before I made a post saying I didn't have the official numbers.  Points for you.  (edit: gotta spread it around)


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Sep 23, 2005)

Hobbit said:
			
		

> No official numbers off the top of my head, as most of the legacy media (they're not mainstream anymore) doesn't want to publish them, but I can tell you that I hardly ever hear of people not re-enlisting at least once over there unless they only joined for the college money and tried to dodge actual service in the first place.
> 
> As far as criticism, you're fine if you think the war isn't being fought correctly.  I, personally, think we're being too PC and need to take off the kid gloves.  It's guys like xen who like to use buzzwords like "illegal war," "quagmire," and "Nazi" that I have a beef with.



That's fine, but please be careful when you say things like "the re-enlistment rate is astronomical" when you don't really have any numbers to prove it... I'd like to believe it's true, but you're just spreading rumours without the evidence. I know there are soldiers who are unhappy about their extended tours of duty. I've heard that this has made retention more difficult for the armed forces. Since we each have different observational experiences, some numbers would help us out... is there anywhere you know of to get re-enlistment rates?


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Sep 23, 2005)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> Retention is good.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for the links... I'm going to look at them. Do they have actual statistics in them, or just "retention rates are high" type statements?

EDIT: There are some numbers. Good post.


----------



## Zhukov (Sep 23, 2005)

Just general statements, usually imbedded way inside the articles.

If you want numbers I'd suggest you search DoD.gov.  

It's good news so it won't be in the news.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Sep 23, 2005)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> It's good news so it won't be in the news.


Agreed. That's a whole 'nother topic of discussion just WAITING to happen.


----------



## Hagbard Celine (Sep 23, 2005)

> Untrue. Every citizen is a member of the political process. You can't lose the process and then claim it doesn't represent you. Move to Canada if this country doesn't represent you. You might not agree with the end result, but you can't disown it when it doesn't serve your purpose. Well you can, by leaving...



Typical.  "If you don't love America then you can just get out."  Such respect for the views of others. But who am I kidding.  This is the same disrespect doled out by all of you Conservative posters for anyone displaying a non-militaristic point of view.   

And I agree with you on the statement that every citizen is a member of the political PROCESS, but every citizen isn't a member of the outcome of that process.  

With the three branches of the government dominated by the Republican party, every Conservative agenda is passing through with almost no opposition.  Almost half of Americans have been left with practically no voice in the affairs of their country and it's extremely frustrating.


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> Typical.  "If you don't love America then you can just get out."  Such respect for the views of others. But who am I kidding.  This is the same disrespect doled out by all of you Conservative posters for anyone displaying a non-militaristic point of view.
> 
> And I agree with you on the statement that every citizen is a member of the political PROCESS, but every citizen isn't a member of the outcome of that process.
> 
> With the three branches of the government dominated by the Republican party, every Conservative agenda is passing through with almost no opposition.  Almost half of Americans have been left with practically no voice in the affairs of their country and it's extremely frustrating.


----------



## Abbey Normal (Sep 23, 2005)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> Well, this thread has come along way in my absence.
> 
> All of which the majority of people in the know believed at the time.
> 
> ...




Zhuk, this is simply one of the most well-reasoned and thoughtful posts on the board since I joined. I wanted to thank you for taking the time to write it all out for us, and tell you that some of us do hear you. 

Bravo!


----------



## dmp (Sep 23, 2005)

The problem does not lie with Republicans so much as it does with the fact 'The Democrats' have NO Policies...no Plans...no methods which make any sense.  All the Majority of Citizens in this country see is ineptitude, waste, squander, spinelessness, appeasement, and lip-service.  

Perhaps if 'your party' would revert to more of a Zel Miller stance on issues, there'd be more chance for wider acceptance.


----------



## Zhukov (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

>



You _would_ clap.



			
				Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> but every citizen isn't a member of the outcome of that process.



Woe is me, my side didn't win.  I quit.



> Almost half of Americans have been left with practically no voice in the affairs of their country and it's extremely frustrating.


I hope so, because the incessant whining is annoying.  So it's only fair.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Sep 23, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> Typical.  "If you don't love America then you can just get out."  Such respect for the views of others. But who am I kidding.  This is the same disrespect doled out by all of you Conservative posters for anyone displaying a non-militaristic point of view.
> 
> And I agree with you on the statement that every citizen is a member of the political PROCESS, but every citizen isn't a member of the outcome of that process.
> 
> With the three branches of the government dominated by the Republican party, every Conservative agenda is passing through with almost no opposition.  Almost half of Americans have been left with practically no voice in the affairs of their country and it's extremely frustrating.



It's not a love it or leave it argument, but you can't disown the country when it doesn't suit your interests. The Republican domination is because the Democratic party lacks any competent leadership. Howard Dean as the chairman? SERIOUSLY? If you're unsatisfied with the leadership of the country, you need to address your party and why they weren't able to regain it. George Bush is not a difficult president to defeat. Some Republicans will even admit to that.

If you're involved in the process, you're involved in the outcome. Your team lost.

I'd vote for a Democrat if they could find one with any common sense. The democratic party is interested in nothing but pandering to it's supporters. You are not the victim of a Republican conspiracy. You LOST because Democratic party leadership is WORSE than the Republicans.

There was no disrepect in my posting. None that was intended. You come off as sounding like it's unfair that Democrats aren't in power.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Sep 23, 2005)

dmp said:
			
		

> The problem does not lie with Republicans so much as it does with the fact 'The Democrats' have NO Policies...no Plans...no methods which make any sense.  All the Majority of Citizens in this country see is ineptitude, waste, squander, spinelessness, appeasement, and lip-service.
> 
> Perhaps if 'your party' would revert to more of a Zel Miller stance on issues, there'd be more chance for wider acceptance.



I agree with the lack of a plan argument, but Zel Miller is insane. I'd be wary of anyone who looks to him as how the country should be run.


----------



## Zhukov (Sep 23, 2005)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> You come off as sounding like it's unfair that Democrats aren't in power.


One begins to think that deep down inside they don't really care about democracy or majority opinion, but instead only that they are 'right' and they should therefore be in power forever.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Sep 23, 2005)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> One begins to think that deep down inside they don't really care about democracy or majority opinion, but instead only that they are 'right' and they should therefore be in power forever.



It's just unfortunate that they lack the ability to be self-critical. It would improve the party so much. Like I said, beating George Bush isn't that hard.


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> One begins to think that deep down inside they don't really care about democracy or majority opinion, but instead only that they are 'right' and they should therefore be in power forever.


We think EXACTLY the same about you the reich wing, well put.

BTW, that was a good post by conservative standards, good show.
Only problem is that its illogical.
*
America will ALWAYS have enemies. 
You either choose to fight them forever, or have a successful nation. *


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> We think EXACTLY the same about you the reich wing, well put.
> 
> BTW, that was a good post by conservative standards, good show.
> Only problem is that its illogical.
> ...



All of that could be true, but you still refuse to admit your own party's inadequacies. I, for one, would take much greater stock in your opinion if it was obvious you had the ability and were willing to be self-critical.


----------



## Zhukov (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> We think EXACTLY the same about you the reich wing, well put.


Call the Republicans Nazis.  How original and intelligent.  

Sorry to disappoint however, but I don't happen to be a Republican.  I just tend to agree with them more often than not these days.



> BTW, that was a good post by conservative standards, good show.
> Only problem is that its illogical.


Your posts are mediocre by liberal standards.  No problem with the illogic of them however, as that is par for the course.  Were logic to creep in, it would cease to be liberal.



> America will ALWAYS have enemies.
> You either choose to fight them forever, or have a successful nation.


What a colossaly stupid line.  Let me guess, that's you own (not Jefferson's), though no doubt a grotesque bastardization of something Jefferson once said.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 23, 2005)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> I agree with the lack of a plan argument, but Zel Miller is insane. I'd be wary of anyone who looks to him as how the country should be run.




Zell miller is cogent, honest, and a great american.  Where do you get that he's insane?


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> All of that could be true, but you still refuse to admit your own party's inadequacies. I, for one, would take much greater stock in your opinion if it was obvious you had the ability and were willing to be self-critical.



Hehhe, well good then.. The democratics are a bunch of morons, sell-out, republican wannabes. I am expecially DISGUSTED by clinton's DLC. You can quote me on that.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Sep 23, 2005)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Zell miller is cogent, honest, and a great american.  Where do you get that he's insane?



From my own personal opinion. We appear to disagree on that. Especially the cogent part. I'm willing to agree to disagree, are you?


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Hehhe, well good then.. The democratics are a bunch of morons, sell-out, republican wannabes. I am expecially DISGUSTED by clinton's DLC. You can quote me on that.



Was that sarcastic? I can't tell... and...DLC, help an idiot out here...


----------



## dmp (Sep 23, 2005)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> From my own personal opinion. We appear to disagree on that. Especially the cogent part. I'm willing to agree to disagree, are you?




I hope he's not. Words mean something...remember? You claimed Miller to be 'insane'.  What, specifically, leads you to that conclusion?


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Sep 23, 2005)

dmp said:
			
		

> I hope he's not. Words mean something...remember? You claimed Miller to be 'insane'.  What, specifically, leads you to that conclusion?



ugh... if it's easier to just take back the insane comment then to get into a whole thing about Zel Miller, I'm willing to do that. I just don't have much interest in talking about him, if it's unfair for me to call him insane and then say this... then i was unfair. I take it back.


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> Call the Republicans Nazis.  How original and intelligent.


They are not nazis, just the 4th reich. 



> Sorry to disappoint however, but I don't happen to be a Republican.  I just tend to agree with them more often than not these days.


Do you like Ayn Rand? shes a commie, commie worldview, booogus.



> Your posts are mediocre by liberal standards.  No problem with the illogic of them however, as that is par for the course.  Were logic to creep in, it would cease to be liberal.


So its impossible for me to be logical, because im liberal? you know this country was founded on liberal principles. They called for us to become 'ever more liberal'.
It seems it has lost its meaning for you, how sad.



> What a colossaly stupid line.  Let me guess, that's you own (not Jefferson's), though no doubt a grotesque bastardization of something Jefferson once said.


You dont even KNOW why its stupid, hehehehe. you just says it is. NICE.
Everything I say is a bastardization of what jefferson stood for.
I figure, if i only listen to him and few of his founder buddies, madison, etc. Then sooner or later, ill get it right.


----------



## dmp (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> You dont even KNOW why its stupid, hehehehe. you just says it is.




Dude - just a suggestion - don't f with Zhuk.  He's owned you about 6 times in this thread, and I am not sure i can take how badly you'll get owned if you continue down this line of thought...


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

dmp said:
			
		

> Dude - just a suggestion - don't f with Zhuk.


who said i f'ed with zhuk?? and who cares, i have no respect for someone who does not respect me. period. 
Hes the one who says something stupid without giving his reasoning! equivalent to _'nerrr, Your a dumbass'._


----------



## dmp (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> who said i f'ed with zhuk?? and who cares, i have no respect for someone who does not respect me. period.
> Hes the one who says something stupid without giving his reasoning! equivalent to _'nerrr, Your a dumbass'._



Let me put it in a way you might understand:

Intellectually, you've been pwn3d several times in this thread; instead of admitting those points which Zhuk has 'got you' on, you move on to NEW points. In every case, Zhuk has replied back with a MUCH more convincing argument...

Now...this last reply...

You bring up 'respect'...and then point fingers....instead of taking responsibility of your own actions, you blame HIM for your lack of respect to his intellectual arguments.

see where i'm going, brother?


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

This was what i said:


> America will ALWAYS have enemies.
> You either choose to fight them forever, or have a successful nation.



This is Zhuk's reply:



> What a colossaly stupid line. Let me guess, that's you own (not Jefferson's), though no doubt a grotesque bastardization of something Jefferson once said.



How is this statement 'owning me' if It does not make a counter-point at all?


----------



## Zhukov (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> They are not nazis, just the 4th reich.


Right.  So your weasling out of your own vitriolic statement?  Can't even stand behind your own accusations, let alone defend them?  Admirable.



> Do you like Ayn Rand? shes a commie, commie worldview, booogus.


Ayn Rand's a 'commie'?  Wow, I'm just going to move on.



> So its impossible for me to be logical, because im liberal? you know this country was founded on liberal principles. They called for us to become 'ever more liberal'.
> It seems it has lost its meaning for you, how sad.


Liberal has not lost meaning for me, it has changed meaning over the course of the last four decades.  It no longer means open-minded like it once did.



> You dont even KNOW why its stupid, hehehehe. you just says it is. NICE.


You've run away from everything else so far, why bother explaining this to you I figured.  It's not as if you'd be receptive, and anyone who agrees with me doesn't need an explanation from me, so I figured I'd not waste my time.

But if you insist, one who does not defend his nation against it's enemies will soon find themselves without a nation at all.



> Everything I say is a bastardization of what jefferson stood for.


Yes, I've noticed that.



> I figure, if i only listen to him and few of his founder buddies, madison, etc. Then sooner or later, ill get it right.


One can only hope.


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> ....your weasling.....vitriolic statement? .....accusations...





> Ayn Rand's a 'commie'?  Wow, I'm just going to move on.



She was born in russia, raised a commie, lived in their worldview. Then moved out and changed her views...coooomie.



> Liberal has not lost meaning for me, it has changed meaning over the course of the last four decades.  It no longer means open-minded like it once did.


How can something change meaning? only the people who claim to be liberal can change. To me, it still means open-minded, giving. I dont even consider myself liberal.  I also want to conserv. many many things, founding ideals, natural treasure. So i cant be put in one or the other catagory. I carve my own path!



> one who does not defend his nation against it's enemies will soon find themselves without a nation at all.



Most Americans want to defend this nation. we just all want to do it different ways. You think I dont? really?



> One can only hope.


I would say its the best way to form my own political ideals in its purest form.
Dontcha you think? 

Anyway, I gotta go, nice talkin to you zhuk!


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 23, 2005)

> Do you like Ayn Rand? shes a commie, commie worldview, booogus.



There is almost nobody more opposite to a communist worldview than Ayn Rand.  This simply shows a total lack of understanding of the word communist.  It might even be one of the most ill thought out remarks I have ever seen on this message board and that would really be saying something...

 :scratch:




			
				xen said:
			
		

> She was born in russia, raised a commie, lived in their worldview. Then moved out and *changed her views*...coooomie.



If somebody has a "commie worldview" then *changes* their views they no longer have a "commie worldview".  Can I make it any more simpler to you?

She lived under the communist thumb, moved and fought against every aspect of communism the rest of her life.  Beyond any doubt at all this is the most inaccurate statement I have ever seen on the board.


----------



## dmp (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> She was born in russia, raised a commie, lived in their worldview. Then moved out and changed her views...coooomie.



lmao...

So...I was born in Washington State, Raised a democrat, then moved to Texas and became a republican - am I still a Democrat?

wow.


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

Sorry I am a bit confusing, in a hurry.
If I move to canada because i hate this administration, im still going be in the 'we rule ourselves' state of mind.
And she is a commie, hehehe.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Sorry I am a bit confusing, in a hurry.
> If I move to canada because i hate this administration, im still going be in the 'we rule ourselves' state of mind.
> And she is a commie, hehehe.



Anybody who fights against communism with the vitality and success of Ayn Rand cannot be considered a communist any more than the US can be considered Britain after the revolutionary war.


----------



## Zhukov (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> How can something change meaning? only the people who claim to be liberal can change.


Bingo.



> Most Americans want to defend this nation. we just all want to do it different ways. You think I dont? really?


I just love being put into the position where I have to explain people to themselves.  It really makes me feel as if I'm speaking to someone of intelligence and I'm spending my time wisely.



			
				you said:
			
		

> America will ALWAYS have enemies.
> You either choose to fight them forever, or have a successful nation.



This is what you said.  It is an "either-or" statement.  See the 'either' and the 'or'?  So, according to you, the only way to have a successful nation is to fight your enemies only some of the time, if at all.

Therefore I think what you would consider defending this coutry, and actually physically defending this country, are two different things.

Which brings us to a wonderful two part question.  Who are our enemies and how would you defend this country against them?  (during the _some of the time_ you are actually fighting them of course)


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> How can something change meaning? only the people who claim to be liberal can change. To me, it still means open-minded, giving. I dont even consider myself liberal.  I also want to conserv. many many things, founding ideals, natural treasure. So i cant be put in one or the other catagory. I carve my own path!




Liberalism today standsfor authoritarianism, socialism and anti americanism.

Wanting to conserve many things doesn't make you a conservative.  Words mean things, not just what you want them to mean.


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Anybody who fights against communism with the vitality and success of Ayn Rand cannot be considered a communist any more than the US can be considered Britain after the revolutionary war.


Okay you are correct, thankyou for the clarity. shes not communist.
However, she does have a flawed worldview.
Its anti-communism to the EXTREME, entrusting everything on large multi-national corporations, she thinks they will solve all our problems, freemarket, corporations writing the rules for themselves, etc.
Instead of US we the people deciding on what the rules of the game are.
Our rules or get-the-f***-out.



			
				Zhukov said:
			
		

> This is what you said. It is an "either-or" statement. See the 'either' and the 'or'? So, according to you, the only way to have a successful nation is to fight your enemies only some of the time, if at all.
> 
> Which brings us to a wonderful two part question. Who are our enemies and how would you defend this country against them?


Let me clarify, You either fight them forever, or have a fruitful nation. Can't have both.

Wow, thats a hard question, mighty long list you're asking for. I'll make it simple: 1. We can have as many enemies as we like.
2. Defend ourselves through peaceful coercion and with superior force when in imminent danger arrives. 
We would also have a 100 million man army at our fingertips, ready to die for our country's survival. If i was to decide anyway. But no standing army, beside special forces and few other sectors.
nobody could f*** with that!


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 23, 2005)

dmp said:
			
		

> I hope he's not. Words mean something...remember? You claimed Miller to be 'insane'.  What, specifically, leads you to that conclusion?



He appeared insane when he was on the Chris Matthews show and challenged him to a duel.  That's not normal behavior.  Also, when he spoke at the Republican National Convention, his anger towards democrats was way too much.  It made him look unstable.


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> It made him look unstable.


Hes a flip-flopper. possessed by the deeemons!


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 23, 2005)

"Okay you are correct, thankyou for the clarity. shes not communist.
However, she does have a flawed worldview.
Its anti-communism to the EXTREME, entrusting everything on large multi-national corporations, she thinks they will solve all our problems, freemarket, corporations writing the rules for themselves, etc.
Instead of US we the people deciding on what the rules of the game are.
Our rules or get-the-f***-out."

LOL.

Government "help" to business is just as disastrous as government persecution... the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off. - Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand was not for "big business" she was for the individual...

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). - Ayn Rand

You clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding of Libertarian points of view.


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Ayn Rand was not for "big business" she was for the individual...


 Whatever the case may be, the freemarket still is breeding ground for monopolies.


> You clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding of Libertarian points of view.


 I hope not! Reading the toxic thought could corrupt my path. Nice quotes though.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> I hope not! Reading the toxic thought could corrupt my path. Nice quotes though.


Your path?  Confusionism?  What path?


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Your path?  Confusionism?  What path?


The path of righteousness, thats all.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> The path of righteousness, thats all.



A libertarian worldview is not an obstacle to a righteous life and in fact gives one the freedom and understanding of one's choices that will help one find such a path.


----------



## kurtsprincess (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> We would also have a 100 million man army at our fingertips, ready to die for our country's survival. If i was to decide anyway. But no standing army, beside special forces and few other sectors.
> nobody could f*** with that!



Wow......xen........great idea.  Now, how would you create this standing army of 100 million?  Remember, I like specific examples; not platitudes. 

Also, how would you arm them if corporations were abolished?


----------



## kurtsprincess (Sep 23, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> He appeared insane when he was on the Chris Matthews show and challenged him to a duel.  That's not normal behavior.  Also, when he spoke at the Republican National Convention, his anger towards democrats was way too much.  It made him look unstable.



He appeared offended, and rightly so.  I'm neither Republican nor Democrat, and I enjoyed watching Zell tell it like he sees it.  For once I thought a politician was being truthful and not pandering.

Love the "spit ball" analogy!


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> A libertarian worldview is not an obstacle to a righteous life and in fact gives one the freedom and understanding of one's choices that will help one find such a path.


Good on you. Me? I prefer an American born idealogy, and the best one is obviously the one we started with.


----------



## Abbey Normal (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Whatever the case may be, the freemarket still is breeding ground for monopolies.
> 
> I hope not! Reading the toxic thought could corrupt my path. Nice quotes though.



Care to share with us what made you turn Socialist, xen? Was it when you realized you lacked the talent to compete in a capitalist system? Did you decide you were just too jealous of the middle class? Did some big, bad capitalist steal your tricycle at a young age? Did you get fired by a some large corporation and now you hate them all?


----------



## kurtsprincess (Sep 23, 2005)

Abbey Normal said:
			
		

> Care to share with us what made you turn Socialist, xen? Was it when you realized you lacked the talent to compete in a capitalist system? Did you decide you were just too jealous of the middle class? Did some big, bad capitalist steal your tricycle at a young age? Did you get fired by a some large corporation and now you hate them all?



How astute of you Abbey! :clap1:


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

kurtsprincess said:
			
		

> How astute of you Abbey!


That was lame ass post. Not even a good try. SOCIALIST! ROFL!


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 23, 2005)

"The free market is a breeding ground for monopolies."  -- THis is the most retarded thing I've ever read. eliminating free markets ensures a government monopoly which has all the negative aspects of a private monopoly, plus the absolute power of government.


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> "The free market is a breeding ground for monopolies."  -- THis is the most retarded thing I've ever read. eliminating free markets ensures a government monopoly which has all the negative aspects of a private monopoly, plus the absolute power of government.


This is the most retarded thing I've ever read. eliminating free markets ensures that people have the most power in this country. government IS the people.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> This is the most retarded thing I've ever read. eliminating free markets ensures that people have the most power in this country. government IS the people.



You're completely illogical and insane.  I just want you to know that.  I might make your quote my signature.


----------



## Abbey Normal (Sep 23, 2005)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> You're completely illogical and insane...



...and Socialist.


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

The freemarket is illogical and insane. You're saying WE THE PEOPLE shouldnt be allowed to regulate our own market!?  :duh3:


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 23, 2005)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> From my own personal opinion. We appear to disagree on that. Especially the cogent part. I'm willing to agree to disagree, are you?



What is your opinion BASED ON.  Unless you're saying your opinion is based on your opinion.  IS that what you're saying?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> The freemarket is illogical and insane. You're saying WE THE PEOPLE shouldnt be allowed to regulate our own market!?  :duh3:



No.  Read again.  You're illogical and insane.  The government is not equipped to regulate a market effectively.  Price controls and vendor lists nearly ensure, corruption, shortages and gluts.  You're really a little performing ape, aren't you?


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> The government is not equipped to regulate a market effectively.


Are you kidden me? we frickin CREATED the market. No PRIVATE multi-national entity can tell US what are future is going to be like.


----------



## ProudDem (Sep 23, 2005)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> No.  Read again.  You're illogical and insane.  The government is not equipped to regulate a market effectively.  Price controls and vendor lists nearly ensure, corruption, shortages and gluts.  You're really a little performing ape, aren't you?



What does this discussion have to do with the subject I raised in this thread?  Supposedly, we're not supposed to go outside the scope of the original post.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 23, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> What does this discussion have to do with the subject I raised in this thread?  Supposedly, we're not supposed to go outside the scope of the original post.



Well I'm of the opinion that threads should be allowed to drift quite widely.  Don't be such a "rules whore"  

I was just refuting Xen's socialist insanity.  Read my sig.  Do you agree with this psycho?


----------



## Abbey Normal (Sep 23, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> What does this discussion have to do with the subject I raised in this thread?  Supposedly, we're not supposed to go outside the scope of the original post.




You'll have to ask our little Socialist friend. He is the one who keeps bringing up the free-market economy and evil corporations.


----------



## Annie (Sep 23, 2005)

ProudDem said:
			
		

> What does this discussion have to do with the subject I raised in this thread?  Supposedly, we're not supposed to go outside the scope of the original post.



And this is an example of your boring part-I noticed you totally ignored the kudos part, but then so will I.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25294&page=3&pp=15

#44.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25294&page=4&pp=15

#50.

Not too mention the number of posts where you have replied after asking a particular question:

'I'm not going to agree...' 'I'm not going to respond...' 'Don't try to discuss this anymore...' and others of that ilk. Not only lame, but it takes away from what you do successfully.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 23, 2005)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> And this is an example of your boring part-I noticed you totally ignored the kudos part, but then so will I.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25294&page=3&pp=15
> 
> ...




Libs always try to just abandon the discussion when they lose.  It's why they can't do talk radio.  They can't argue effectifely, because their arguments have no merit.


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Well I'm of the opinion that threads should be allowed to drift quite widely.  Don't be such a "rules whore"
> 
> I was just refuting Xen's socialist insanity.  Read my sig.  Do you agree with this psycho?



Here we go with the socialism again..oh brother.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> This is the most retarded thing I've ever read. eliminating free markets ensures that people have the most power in this country. government IS the people.



The government is Representative of the people, hence the reason we vote for representatives rather than voting on our own laws.  However power of the government over all manufacturing and elimination of the free market has already been shown to be a failure, there is no need to experiment with this.  Not only that but that form of government is overbearing and takes from the individual their free rights.

BTW this type of thing is why I thought you were communist (and now believe so even more than before pssshhht, elimination of the free market system), even the Democrats are into a truncated free market with government oversight, not the elimination of capitalism but a hobbled capitalism.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> The freemarket is illogical and insane. You're saying WE THE PEOPLE shouldnt be allowed to regulate our own market!?  :duh3:



Elimination is not the same as regulation.  Once again you go overboard and seem to not even realize that different words have different meaning.

The elimination of the free market means a complete government takeover of all companies and corporations.

The regulation of a free market means that laws are placed over corporations to ensure standards and to protect the individual from a larger organization of individuals.

There is an immense difference between the two.


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> The government is Representative of the people, hence the reason we vote for representatives rather than voting on our own laws.  However power of the government over all manufacturing and elimination of the free market has already been shown to be a failure, there is no need to experiment with this.  Not only that but that form of government is overbearing and takes from the individual their free rights.
> 
> BTW this type of thing is why I thought you were communist (and now believe so even more than before pssshhht, elimination of the free market system), even the Democrats are into a truncated free market with government oversight, not the elimination of capitalism but a hobbled capitalism.


I agree with everything you just said.
 I believe in responsible capitalism. Where the PEOPLE decide on what a business can and cannot do. this is the only way the people can get whats in their best interest. Freemarket is totally opposite, when the private industry makes its own rules.


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Elimination is not the same as regulation. The elimination of the free market means a complete government takeover of all companies and corporations.


I don't believe the freemarket is regulated by the people. Freemarket is something new, nothing to do with FDR's legacy.



> The regulation of a free market means that laws are placed over corporations to ensure standards and to protect the individual from a larger organization of individuals.


THe freemarket DOES NOT place standards to protect the individual, they place standards to meet the bottom line...
The Freemarket is an economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions.
Its a free-for-all.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> I agree with everything you just said.
> I believe in responsible capitalism. Where the PEOPLE decide on what a business can and cannot do. this is the only way the people can get whats in their best interest. Freemarket is totally opposite, when the private industry makes its own rules.



Responsible capitalism incorporates the free market.  The Freemarket cannot be "totally opposite" when it is involved.  Regulation is different than elimination.  Look them up, you will see that they are different.  I have already explained but once again it appears that you cannot read English, or choose to ignore posts that show that the words you are using are making you appear a "commie", as you so love to call others.

There is no market in the world that is entirely a free market, but capitalism necessarily incorporates a free market.  The more free the market the more business positive it is, the less free the more regulation.  There is a balance, but elimination of the free market is impossible when working within capitalism.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> I don't believe the freemarket is regulated by the people. Freemarket is something new, nothing to do with FDR's legacy.


*sigh*

Since you cannot get it through your thick skull that words mean things even when the things that they mean are explained to you, I will repeat it again in different words to see if some information can soak in.

Regulation on a free market sets standards on products and services and protects individuals from the larger group of individuals who own companies and incorporate.  To not recognize capitalism itself as the free market is simply denial.  Elimination of the free market is the total takeover of all companies and corporations by the government with no ownership by individuals and completely run by an overpowering government.  This has failed in the past and will fail again.



> THe freemarket DOES NOT place standards to protect the individual, they place standards to meet the bottom line...
> The Freemarket is an economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions.
> Its a free-for-all.


I never stated that the free market sets regulations on themselves, you cannot read or refuse to read the actual post and make assumptions that are directly opposed to what was posted without regard to the actual meaning of the words.

I cannot stress it enough, words have meaning and when body language and facial expression is non-existent, it is very important to impart what you mean by using the correct words.  That you do not know the definition of regulation is clear, that you do not know simple economic terms such as the free market is also clear.

The government sets regulations on the free market and therefore sets standards by which they must comply in order to enter said market, that is regulation.  I have never stated that I believe in self-regulation of the free market and in fact I have stated that I do believe in the continuation of the current free market with regulations in order to protect individuals from the larger groups of individuals who own corporations.


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

You shouldn't call it the freemarket then, since that would be to the extreme.
We should have responsible capitalism. where corporations can do business with who ever they want. But we the PEOPLE can tell them NO if they are undermining democracy, in any form. They cannot be involved in OUR government at all.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 23, 2005)

Definitions:

Free market:

Colloquially and loosely, a free market economy is an economy where the market is relatively free, as in an economy *overseen by a government* that practices a laissez-faire, rather than either a mixed or statist economic policy. Within economics the more usual term is simply "the market", or "the market mechanism", to mean the allocation of production through supply and demand.

Regulation:

A regulation (as a legal term) is a rule created by an administrative agency or body that interprets the statute(s) setting out the agency's purpose and powers, or the circumstances of applying the statute.

Therefore the regulation of a free market is from the administrative agency of the government.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> You shouldn't call it the freemarket then, since that would be to the extreme.
> We should have responsible capitalism. where corporations can do business with who ever they want. But we the PEOPLE can tell them NO if they are undermining democracy, in any form. They cannot be involved in OUR government at all.



They cannot but it would be a violation of the First Amendment Rights of the Individual to eliminate their right to be involved because of ownership of a corporation.

As I have told you before, a corporation is not an individual and has no rights it is the owners of the corporation that have rights.


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> To not recognize capitalism itself as the free market is simply denial.  Elimination of the free market is the total takeover of all companies and corporations by the government with no ownership by individuals and completely run by an overpowering government.  This has failed in the past and will fail again.


I would be glad if that type of system DID fail in this country, socialism is stupid.





> I never stated that the free market sets regulations on themselves...


 I know you didn't, I did, because i disagree with you. Right at this moment corporations are writing their own rules, and its pissing me off!


> ...that you do not know simple economic terms such as the free market is also clear.


 Sorry!! i differ in opinion! 
Their welfare is probly 5 times the amount of welfare our citizens get. They are a burdon, the last thing we need to do is deregulate them.




> ... I do believe in the continuation of the current free market with regulations in order to protect individuals from the larger groups of individuals who own corporations.


You should look at it from the view of labor aswell as private individuals.


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> They cannot but it would be a violation of the First Amendment Rights of the Individual to eliminate their right to be involved because of ownership of a corporation.





> As I have told you before, a corporation is not an individual and has no rights it is the owners of the corporation that have rights.



corporations should never get individual rights, they have no soul or moral obligation. The only goal is the bottomline, anything else is illegal now.
 Owners are not even part of this issue.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> I would be glad if that type of system DID fail in this country, socialism is stupid.


Why would you be glad if it failed, it would first mean that we attempted it against all logic?



> I know you didn't, I did, because i disagree with you. Right at this moment corporations are writing their own rules, and its pissing me off!



Understandable, however you need to differentiate between the individuals who run a corporation who have every right to be part of a representative government and the corporation itself.



> Sorry!! i differ in opinion!
> Their welfare is probly 5 times the amount of welfare our citizens get. They are a burdon, the last thing we need to do is deregulate them.



Okay you take this and quote it:


			
				no1 said:
			
		

> ...that you do not know simple economic terms such as the free market is also clear.



Then you give the above answer?  You make no sense.  Anyway you have already seen my opinion before in an Ayn Rand quote about the "help" a government should give to a corporation.  Therefore an assumption that I think that corporate welfare is a joy-joy good thing is simply showing the fact that you do not actually read the opinion of those who answer you.



> You should look at it from the view of labor aswell as private individuals.


When did I say that I didn't?  Once again, the most important and only goal of a government should be to protect the individual's rights.  You seem to ignore what I actually say and constantly assign an opinion to me without regard to what I actually state.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> corporations should never get individual rights, they have no soul or moral obligation. The only goal is the bottomline, anything else is illegal now.
> Owners are not even part of this issue.



Once again, in agreement you see argument.  I have stated repeatedly a Corporation is not an individual and has no rights at all.  Only the owners of the corporations, who are individuals, can have rights.


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

Whatever man, im gettin tired. I get your points, dont get me wrong. I suppose capitalism, is a balance is between a freeforall system and an extremely regulated one. I am not an advocate of either, balance is good.
What I DONT agree with is large multi-national corporations undermining our democracy.

_RIGHT NOW_ corporations have a bigger vote in this country than a person. this is wrong.  Sure _OWNERS_ of corporations may have a bit more influence due to their resources, but the corporation itself, is on totally different level.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> corporations should never get individual rights, they have no soul or moral obligation. The only goal is the bottomline, anything else is illegal now.
> Owners are not even part of this issue.



You misread, I quoted your statement that Corporations should have no access to the government.  Then posted:

They cannot, however it would be a violation of an individual's right to deny them access simply because of ownership of a corporation.

I was speaking about the individuals that own corporations and their rights which are protected.  Somehow it seemed to you that I was stating that corporations have rights, even after I have written about sixteen or more times in this thread alone that corporations cannot have rights, only the people who own them can because they are individuals.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Whatever man, im gettin tired. I get your points, dont get me wrong. I suppose capitalism, is a balance is between a freeforall system and an extremely regulated one. I am not an advocate of either, balance is good.
> What I DONT agree with is large multi-national corporations undermining our democracy.
> 
> _RIGHT NOW_ corporations have a bigger vote in this country than a person. this is wrong.  Sure _OWNERS_ of corporations may have a bit more influence due to their resources, but the corporation itself, is on totally different level.



In this we find agreement.


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

ey wheres your beer? its friday night!   Im goin down to octoberfest, nice talkin with you.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 23, 2005)

dmp said:
			
		

> Dude - just a suggestion - don't f with Zhuk.  He's owned you about 6 times in this thread, and I am not sure i can take how badly you'll get owned if you continue down this line of thought...



Hell, who HASN'T owned him?


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> ey wheres your beer? its friday night!   Im goin down to octoberfest, nice talkin with you.



You too, it has been fun.    I think I will go down to the store to get me some beer...  Too bad I quit smoking, tough to go without when drinking beer.

:alco:


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

eh, octoberfest was a bit too small, but was lots of fun considering the short time i was there.

*glug*


----------



## manu1959 (Sep 23, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> Typical.  "If you don't love America then you can just get out."  Such respect for the views of others. But who am I kidding.  This is the same disrespect doled out by all of you Conservative posters for anyone displaying a non-militaristic point of view.
> 
> And I agree with you on the statement that every citizen is a member of the political PROCESS, but every citizen isn't a member of the outcome of that process.
> 
> With the three branches of the government dominated by the Republican party, every Conservative agenda is passing through with almost no opposition.  Almost half of Americans have been left with practically no voice in the affairs of their country and it's extremely frustrating.



hate to tell you this but .... you lost .... lost ... see this isn't a big hug fest .... you don't get a do over .... we kept score and you lost .... which means you don't get your way .... stay if you like .... but stop being a poor sport .... complaine if you like .... blame the ref ... call the other side cheats .... tell yoursef that you are better and you should have won rationalize your failure all you like .... at the end of the day .... you lost and you are bitter .... if you spent more time figuring out how to win and less time complaining about how you were cheated or balming the other team or the wahtever or claiming the won beacuse they cheated  or whatever excuse you would like to use for you own failure .... it is this simple ..... people do not see complainers and blamers as leaders


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

_


			
				manu1959 said:
			
		


			...you lost...lost..this isn't a big hug fest...you lost...you don't get your way...being a poor sport.... complaine... .... blame..  failure....u lost... you are bitter...complaining...cheated ...balming .... claiming ...cheated ...excuse... you own failure ...complainers and blamers as leaders
		
Click to expand...

_ Is that all you have, whining, no rebuttal? you sound like the mainstream media.  

-EDIT- HAHHA, your post is hilarious!! I cut out all your FLUFF.


----------



## manu1959 (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Is that all you have, whining, no rebuttal? you sound like the mainstream media.



interesting .... i am whining ...

what would you like me to rebut for you?

Hagbard Celine's post.....

why do i need to rebut to it?   are there rules that i need to follow to make you happy?  am i not allowed an opinion or an observation of the lefts beahviour?

is my opinion wrong?  is the left exhibiting traits of a good looser?  are they complimenting the victor? are they trying harder....if you children lost a sporting event would you want them behaving as the left has?

the original question was suppot of the troops vs support of the war....i answered that....


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

I don't believe the above was an answer to a question, just fluffed up intimidation. Sorry mate.


----------



## manu1959 (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> -EDIT- HAHHA, your post is hilarious!! I cut out all your FLUFF.



that's it .... thank you .... i feel further convicted in my beliefs ...  i am sure that as you on the left continue to insult those on the right you remain confident that those on the right will eventually embrace and support you because you are so funny and so wise ..... arrogance and a condescending attitude seems to have worked well for you all.


----------



## manu1959 (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> I don't believe the above was an answer to a question, just fluffed up intimidation. Sorry mate.



sorry but you are obviuosly one of those brilliant folks from the left and i am just a dumb hick so the above makes zero sense to me....what are you trying to communicate to me....speak slow now and use small words


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> ..speak slow now and use small words


 I already do that...and I'M the dumb hick. You are rich city boy or SOMETHIN.
Anyway, no rebuttal for me?


----------



## manu1959 (Sep 23, 2005)

so back on topic:

_Everytime I see pictures of anti-war protestors,

I see those who support the war holding signs that say, "Support Our Troops." 

Can someone please explain to me why people assume that just because 
someone does not support the war that it means that person also does not 
support the troops? _ 

the question posed does not acurately depict the event.

you can oppose the war if you like ... this is much different than protesting in public against the war.

i do not belive we should be at war .... however we are .... but, i will not "boo" my team in public because i do not like what they have done .... that gives momentem to the other side .... it makes the other side belive that they can win .... and i do not want the other side to win .... and from where i stand .... you should not do things that will help the other team, give them hope or hurt you team .... vote bush out of office ... write your represenatives ... write bush a letter .... but don't celebrate in the streets chanting that your team are a buch of idiots and you own team is a bunch of murderers .... for fucks sake they are not the ones that are trying to kill you


----------



## manu1959 (Sep 23, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> I already do that...and I'M the dumb hick. You are rich city boy or SOMETHIN.
> Anyway, no rebuttal for me?



hardly .... and don't sell yourself short .... not rich ... and not a city boy .... just a dude from california ....  grew up dirt poor in a broken home and put myself through college .... i will ask again ... what would you like me to rebut for you?


----------



## xen (Sep 23, 2005)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> _Can someone please explain to me why people assume that just because
> someone does not support the war that it means that person also does not
> support the troops? _


I would like to know _also_. Its almost like, if the opposition was in the same place. They wouldn't support the troops.. I DONT GET IT!!



> but don't celebrate in the streets chanting that your team are a buch of idiots


 It does get a bit overly celebratory. "Haha we can protest, no war" etc.

wouldn't a calm, serious, and somber attitude be more appropriate though?

But, I think it is traitorous to treat the opposition as a possible threat. Putting them in cages at national events. Pushing them around, threatening them while they protest.


-EDIT- Sorry, im wasted. let me switch things around a bit.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 24, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Here we go with the socialism again..oh brother.



No.  There YOU go with socialism again.


----------



## xen (Sep 24, 2005)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> No.  There YOU go with socialism again.


Thats what YOU think. ahhhahaha!


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 24, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Thats what YOU think. ahhhahaha!



Yes.  It's what I think because you continually spout socialist crap.


----------



## kurtsprincess (Sep 24, 2005)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Yes.  It's what I think because you continually spout socialist crap.



Socialism:

1.  Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. 
2.  The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Communism:

1.  A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people. 
2.  The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

Capitalism:

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

RW....I think one would have to understand the differences between socialism, communism and capitalism before they can understand that the propaganda they are espousing makes them look like a socialist.  Perhaps xen is confused.........either he is espousing socialism or communism......because he sure doesn't sound like a capitalist to me.


----------



## xen (Sep 24, 2005)

kurtsprincess said:
			
		

> .....either he is espousing socialism or communism......because he sure doesn't sound like a capitalist to me.


What makes you say that?


----------



## manu1959 (Sep 24, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> What makes you say that?



you are kidding right


----------



## xen (Sep 24, 2005)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> you are kidding right


Serously, I would like to know what makes me socialist? Any takers?


----------



## manu1959 (Sep 24, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Serously, I would like to know what makes me socialist? Any takers?



did you read her statement it said you were not a capitalist....for fucks sake dude drop the attitude


----------



## xen (Sep 24, 2005)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> did you read her statement it said you were not a capitalist....for fucks sake dude drop the attitude


Why would I not be capitalist?


----------



## no1tovote4 (Sep 24, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Serously, I would like to know what makes me socialist? Any takers?



Anyway, it can be attributed mostly to a habit of exaggeration.  When you mean 'increased regulation' you say 'elimination of the free market system' which is a communist ideation and certainly not capitalism.  Mostly it is the semantics of what you say, the 'how' of your statements not what you actually mean.  It is why I kept telling you it is vital in order to communicate accurately to use the words you mean or if you are exaggerating for effect tell people so.

I would do something like this:

[exaggerating for effect]

I think we should eliminate government and adopt anarchy...

[/exaggeration]


Then people will know that you are exaggerating.

Use smilies for effect as well, if you are joking add a j/k or a   .  This can go a long way toward minimizing that type of reaction.


----------



## xen (Sep 24, 2005)

Hmm, ya I need to work on my exaggeration.   

Are we confusing the free market term?
I always considered this 'free to commerce' area of the market to be the 'open market'. The other extreme would be having too many rules.

Freemarket to me, means less rules, allowing monopolies, predatory businesses, no obligation to the american people. A _NEW_ term.
They shouldnt be allowed to make mountains of money at our dispense. 
They need to have an interest in the american people, not just the bottom line.

We let them use our legal system, emergency systems, market, currency, roads, utilities, and more. We pay for all of it.

Hehehe, they certainly get alot more welfare than our poorest. And we complain about people getting the welfare?...argh!!


----------



## kurtsprincess (Sep 24, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Why would I not be capitalist?



Let's try this again xen.....

Do you advocate this?

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are *privately or corporately * owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

or do you advocate this?

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is *owned collectively or by a centralized government* that often plans and controls the economy.


You pick!


----------



## xen (Sep 24, 2005)

kurtsprincess said:
			
		

> An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are *privately or corporately * owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.


I think any man should be able to make his own personal forture, without others taking it away, because it is 'too much' or others need it more. Its freedom.




> Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is *owned collectively or by a centralized government* that often plans and controls the economy.


 I don't even know how to approach this, just makes no sense...how could you make money in this system? 
entrepreneurs(if existent) would probly be slowed to the rate of a complicated bureaucracy.
Not to mention the fact that everyone would be a _government employees_. eww!


----------



## kurtsprincess (Sep 24, 2005)

I think this is why we are confused about where you stand xen....



			
				xen said:
			
		

> I think any man should be able to make his own personal forture, without others taking it away, because it is 'too much' or others need it more. Its freedom.



Sounds like you are a capitalist.

However, when you say this:



> Freemarket to me, means less rules, allowing monopolies, predatory businesses, no obligation to the american people. A NEW term.
> They shouldnt be allowed to make mountains of money at our dispense.
> They need to have an interest in the american people, not just the bottom line.



Makes you sound like a socialist.  Wanting the government to impose endless regulations.

So........which one of the above statements is what you really support?


----------



## insein (Sep 24, 2005)

this thread is still going?  Well since its way off topic now, who do you think is going to win the world series?  I mean hey everything else has been discussed in here.  I can't keep track anymore.


----------



## xen (Sep 24, 2005)

> Freemarket to me, means less rules, allowing monopolies, predatory businesses, no obligation to the american people. A NEW term.
> They shouldnt be allowed to make mountains of money at our dispense.
> They need to have an interest in the american people, not just the bottom line.





			
				kurtsprincess said:
			
		

> Makes you sound like a socialist.  Wanting the government to impose endless regulations.
> ....which one of the above statements is what you really support?



 LOL, getting rid of  predatory monopolies and obligating businesses to have an interest in the american peoples future makes me a socialist? I don't thinks o.
And no, I don't advocate endless regulations. I don't believe i have ever said anything like that.


----------



## xen (Sep 24, 2005)

kurtsprincess said:
			
		

> I think this is why we are confused....


Thanks for putting me up to the task, I learned a few things.


----------



## kurtsprincess (Sep 24, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Thanks for putting me up to the task,



You're welcome xen.



> I learned a few things.



Me too.


----------



## elephant (Sep 29, 2005)

Dear xen,

In a desperate attempt to restore what little faith I had in the world, I am writing you this very important letter.  I do not want to offend or confuse you, but I only really have control over the former, as the latter is clearly an integral part of what you makes you  well, you. 

You should thank RWA for bringing this situation to my attention.  You should know that he and I often disagree, but his vigilant monitoring of the board for new lows in stupidity should be applauded.  Without him, I would not have known that you, xen, were reaching for a new bottom.  I realize I may already be too late, but I have to try to help.

I am not sure how this thread came to a discussion of economics, market structure and formation, and government regulation, and after careful consideration  I do not care.  xen, there is no easy way to put this  you are retarded.  I entered your posts into my Economics IQ Tester and the results are irrefutable.  If you knew any less about economics you would actually create a black hole of knowledge, likely only consuming your intellectually feeble ideas; this is not why I was compelled to write to you, though.  Your stupidity is on a level that I have never encountered before  it simply dwarfs the proverbial bag of hammers.  According to my very precise calculations, when you think, you may actually make other people dumber.  Knowing the possibility exists that your black hole of anti-thought could consume the reasonable thoughts of your colleagues and neighbors and render them retarded as well, I could not sleep with a clean conscience.  

The first thing you must do is to stop talking.  This will greatly reduce the spread of your imbecility to others.  And second, although the challenge will be great, the reward is beyond your current, limited imagination, trust me  you should read a book.  Please read in your head, not by moving your lips and whispering, as this will greatly reduce the effectiveness of my first suggestion.  The book I suggest you read is Principles of Economics by Gregory Mankiw.  I do not suggest this book because I think it is a good introduction to economics, but because it is the heaviest, by mass, of the introductory texts with which I am familiar.  So if all else fails you can use it to beat yourself from your current semi-comatose state into a state of complete vegetation.

I hope that my letter finds you well and good luck.

-elephant


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Sep 30, 2005)

Sheesh. A simple "you're an idiot" would have done just as good a job...


----------



## Annie (Sep 30, 2005)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> Sheesh. A simple "you're an idiot" would have done just as good a job...


No, no, would not have been. That was really good.


----------



## Said1 (Sep 30, 2005)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> No, no, would not have been. That was really good.




Effort and creativity are big pluses around here, entertainment value.


----------



## Abbey Normal (Sep 30, 2005)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Effort and creativity are big pluses around here, entertainment value.



And eminently reppable.


----------



## xen (Sep 30, 2005)

:finger:    :finger:


----------



## Annie (Sep 30, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> :finger:    :finger:



This pertains to what?


----------



## xen (Sep 30, 2005)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> This pertains to what?


Biggest load of slander bullshit ive EVER seen...maybe he should just tell me to read a friggin book instead of slandering me. Or maybe he/she could enlighten me on why i am wrong instead of just insulting me. DIDNT even argue a single point. just retarded politician style bullcrap.
If you all knew me you would NOT talk to me that way, you woulnt even consider it. If you did, you would be running in the other direction by the time you were finished.
And because YOU, dont do anything about it. CANT EVEN RECOGNIZE bullcrap when you see it. You are just as bad.


----------



## Annie (Sep 30, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Biggest load of slander bullshit ive EVER seen...maybe he should just tell me to read a friggin book instead of slandering me. Or maybe he/she could enlighten me on why i am wrong instead of just insulting me. DIDNT even argue a single point. just retarded politician style bullcrap.
> If you all knew me you would NOT talk to me that way, you woulnt even consider it. If you did, you would be running in the other direction by the time you were finished.
> And because YOU, dont do anything about it. CANT EVEN RECOGNIZE bullcrap when you see it. You are just as bad.



Once again you are not 'quoting' what you are raving about. Sorry, but no credance here. As one democrat said about some GOP'r, you have no 'gravitas.'


----------



## xen (Sep 30, 2005)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Once again you are not 'quoting' what you are raving about. Sorry, but no credance here. As one democrat said about some GOP'r, you have no 'gravitas.'


You are pathetic.


----------



## xen (Sep 30, 2005)

Everyone is just making me SO angry with this slander. must be trying to get me banned.
I would LOVE to debate, but no..i only get insults for replies.


----------



## Annie (Sep 30, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> You are pathetic.


Let's see, I've posted in the most popular forum for you to clear your pm's.

I've responded to each of your posts.

You still flame. 

1st warning. 

Why am I feeling like a cop dealing with a perp that wants the cops to kill him?


----------



## Annie (Sep 30, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Everyone is just making me SO angry with this slander. must be trying to get me banned.
> I would LOVE to debate, but no..i only get insults for replies.


No one is slandering you, YOU have responsibility for what you post. Perhaps now would be a good time for a break?


----------



## jimnyc (Sep 30, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Biggest load of slander bullshit ive EVER seen...maybe he should just tell me to read a friggin book instead of slandering me.



Again with this slander crap in another thread? Please educate yourself to what you're actually accusing people of.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 30, 2005)

Main Entry: 2slander
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sclaundre, slaundre, from Old French esclandre, from Late Latin scandalum stumbling block, offense -- more at SCANDAL
1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation
2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person -- compare LIBEL
- slan·der·ous /-d(&-)r&s/ adjective
- slan·der·ous·ly adverb
- slan·der·ous·ness noun 	


Please, show us this slander.


----------



## USMCDevilDog (Sep 30, 2005)

elephant said:
			
		

> Dear xen,
> 
> In a desperate attempt to restore what little faith I had in the world, I am writing you this very important letter.  I do not want to offend or confuse you, but I only really have control over the former, as the latter is clearly an integral part of what you makes you  well, you.
> 
> ...



That is the funniest, polite, insult I've ever read! Bravo!

Xen, seriously, whoever is right or wrong, I think the solution to all this shit is just to stop posting for a while and do what Kathianne said, just take a break. All you're doing is pissing yourself off more and more.


----------



## xen (Sep 30, 2005)

If he knew me, he would not talk that way. But since he has, he should hope never to meet me.


----------



## Abbey Normal (Sep 30, 2005)

That's three posts now where you (xen) have told us that if we "knew who you were", we wouldn't talk to you this way. 

You seem to be begging for this question, so here you go: 

"So, tell us, who are you, Xen?"


----------



## USMCDevilDog (Sep 30, 2005)

Abbey Normal said:
			
		

> "So, tell us, who are you, Xen?"



I second that notion. Who are you Xen? Should I be scared of you because you're some tough guy sitting at his computer trying to intimidate us?


----------



## speederdoc (Oct 1, 2005)

e-thugs are mad scary, yo.


----------



## jimnyc (Oct 1, 2005)

Hobbit said:
			
		

> Main Entry: 2slander
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English sclaundre, slaundre, from Old French esclandre, from Late Latin scandalum stumbling block, offense -- more at SCANDAL
> 1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation
> ...



Also, and I wasn't going to ruin the surprise, but slander and/or libel would require physical damages. Without physical damages there is no case. It's simply name calling and opinions, which are protected speech under the first amendment. Slander/libel would require proof that the words were a lie, not an opinion, and must be proven that the 'speaker' purposely lied. These words must be 'spoken' to a crowd and damages suffered. Since no one really even knows who 'xen' is it is virtually impossible for slander to occur.

Anyway, this thread has went way off track. Maybe xen will forget the accusations and stay on track with those who wish to debate with him.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Oct 1, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> If he knew me, he would not talk that way. But since he has, he should hope never to meet me.



Ohhhhh.  Big man.  Come on, e-punk.


----------



## Gunny (Oct 1, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Biggest load of slander bullshit ive EVER seen...maybe he should just tell me to read a friggin book instead of slandering me. Or maybe he/she could enlighten me on why i am wrong instead of just insulting me. DIDNT even argue a single point. just retarded politician style bullcrap.
> *If you all knew me you would NOT talk to me that way, you woulnt even consider it. If you did, you would be running in the other direction by the time you were finished.*And because YOU, dont do anything about it. CANT EVEN RECOGNIZE bullcrap when you see it. You are just as bad.



Here we go with the e-balls.  Come to this, has it?  Just because you terrify little old ladies and toddlers on the park on your bicycle in the park doesn't make you about shit.  Those playing cards in the spokes realy DON'T make you bad, dude.

But if you have your little heart set on arranging a meet to terrify someone with your presence, I want to be first.


----------



## Said1 (Oct 1, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> Everyone is just making me SO angry with this slander. must be trying to get me banned.
> I would LOVE to debate, but no..i only get insults for replies.


----------



## USMCDevilDog (Oct 1, 2005)

I love how he answered our question of who he is  (sarcastic)


----------



## Gunny (Oct 1, 2005)

USMCDevilDog said:
			
		

> I love how he answered our question of who he is  (sarcastic)



He's a _tough guy_.  Aren't you scared? :rotflmao:


----------



## GotZoom (Oct 1, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> If he knew me, he would not talk that way. But since he has, he should hope never to meet me.



He won't tell us anything.  Idle threats.  Mine's bigger..blah blah blah.

If he "was someone" who we should respect for one reason or another, his ego wouldn't have let him gone this far without telling us. 

Therfore.....


----------



## xen (Oct 1, 2005)

Abbey Normal said:
			
		

> That's three posts now where you (xen) have told us that if we "knew who you were", we wouldn't talk to you this way.
> You seem to be begging for this question, so here you go:
> "So, tell us, who are you, Xen?"


I didnt really mean that as a threat. Just saying that if you knew me as a person, and not faceless internet/conspiracy/liberal/nutball/retard/etc, you would be more respectful.


----------



## Annie (Oct 1, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> I didnt really mean that as a threat. Just saying that if you knew me as a person, and not faceless internet/conspiracy/liberal/nutball/retard/etc, you would be more respectful.


Why? You are more logical in person?


----------



## xen (Oct 1, 2005)

You need a chatroom. to answer your question, I duno if im more logical. but i know i would be treated like a person and not a liberal for the forum to focus all its hate on.


----------



## Annie (Oct 1, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> You need a chatroom. to answer your question, I duno if im more logical. but i know i would be treated like a person and not a liberal for the forum to focus all its hate on.


The by jove man, demonstrate that.


----------



## Abbey Normal (Oct 1, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> I didnt really mean that as a threat. Just saying that if you knew me as a person, and not faceless internet/conspiracy/liberal/nutball/retard/etc, you would be more respectful.



I didn't take it as a threat. I took it as you believe you are someone important or special, and if we knew who you were, as you put it, we would respect you because of it. 

I think it is true that on the whole, people are nicer face-to-face than they are over the Internet. Is that all you are trying to say? 

Speaking strictly from my experience on here with you, I don't care if your views are different from mine, but I would respect you more if you weren't so crass in expressing them. Capice?


----------



## USMCDevilDog (Oct 1, 2005)

I think we should all just dance now.

No, seriously though, Xen, the way you presented the "you don't know me" statement made it sound like you were basically saying "Don't fuck with me because you don't know me", maybe not as harsh, but you get my drift.


----------



## Gunny (Oct 2, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> You need a chatroom. to answer your question, I duno if im more logical. but i know i would be treated like a person and not a liberal for the forum to focus all its hate on.



Quit acting like the liberal you claim to not be, pointing a finger at everyone else.  Point it at the dude in the mirror.  I have treated you in a manner befitting _your_ behavior.  If you wish to be treated differently, act differently.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Oct 2, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> You need a chatroom. to answer your question, I duno if im more logical. but i know i would be treated like a person and not a liberal for the forum to focus all its hate on.



Oh, poor you.  Maybe people would like you if you weren't such a commie?


----------



## speederdoc (Oct 2, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> If you all knew me you would NOT talk to me that way, you woulnt even consider it. If you did, you would be running in the other direction by the time you were finished.
> 
> I didnt really mean that as a threat. Just saying that if you knew me as a person, and not faceless internet/conspiracy/liberal/nutball/retard/etc, you would be more respectful.


So why would anyone run in the other direction then? It would be more classy to apologize for your e-threat than to try to backtrack from it.


----------



## trobinett (Oct 3, 2005)

So xen, it`s safe to say then, you DON`T support the war, but your behine the troops?

How far behine, just far enough so your out of harms way?

Far enough so your thought of as PC?

Far enough, so later, you can say, "I supported the troops"?

It`s two faced, and you know it.

Ya been busted, fess up, and admit it.

You are one sorry, confused, and two faced individual.

Grow up........................... :moon4:


----------



## Hagbard Celine (Oct 3, 2005)

> So xen, it`s safe to say then, you DON`T support the war, but your behine the troops?
> 
> How far behine, just far enough so your out of harms way?
> 
> ...



Blind allegiance to a failing policy doesn't make you patriotic, it makes you stubborn.  I support the idea of bringing our troops home so that they can actually enjoy their American freedoms and live in a place where they can see their families and keep the use of all their limbs.  How's that for supporting our troops?


----------



## trobinett (Oct 3, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> Blind allegiance to a failing policy doesn't make you patriotic, it makes you stubborn.  I support the idea of bringing our troops home so that they can actually enjoy their American freedoms and live in a place where they can see their families and keep the use of all their limbs.  How's that for supporting our troops?




Whoa there fellow poster, if supporting the troops in the way you outline, puts you in your "comfort zone", have at it.

My point is, your confused, and aren`t supporting our troops at all.

Do I think you`ll understand?  No, I don`t.

Do I think I`ll change your mind? No, I don`t.

Will I even TRY to change your mind? No, I won`t.


----------



## manu1959 (Oct 3, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> Blind allegiance to a failing policy doesn't make you patriotic, it makes you stubborn.  I support the idea of bringing our troops home so that they can actually enjoy their American freedoms and live in a place where they can see their families and keep the use of all their limbs.  How's that for supporting our troops?



one question:

what would it take for you to change your mind?


----------



## xen (Oct 3, 2005)

trobinett said:
			
		

> So xen, it`s safe to say then, you DON`T support the war, but your behine the troops?


 Ya, thats right.


> Far enough so your thought of as PC?


 Honestly I have NEVER wondered if ANYONE was PC or not, including myself.

I think YOU and most of your side dont support the troops. 
Defending an administration that does NOT need your support. They have an army of trial lawyers for that.
 Inadvertently supporting torturous dictatorships around the world, uzbekistan and the sauds for example.
You obviously wouldnt support the troops if they are in an illegal war. I support them in any situation.


----------



## xen (Oct 3, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> Blind allegiance to a failing policy doesn't make you patriotic, it makes you stubborn.


It makes them worse than that. More like, unamerican! Our true spirit is rebellious.


----------



## Hagbard Celine (Oct 3, 2005)

> one question:
> 
> what would it take for you to change your mind?



What I think doesn't matter, because the fact is that our guys are going to have to stay in Iraq until the Iraqis can take over the job of providing security for themselves.  Until that day, however far down the road it may be, our guys are going to have to deal with living and working in a nightmare.


----------



## xen (Oct 3, 2005)

black skies, bloodbath in paradise.


----------



## manu1959 (Oct 3, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> What I think doesn't matter, because the fact is that our guys are going to have to stay in Iraq until the Iraqis can take over the job of providing security for themselves.  Until that day, however far down the road it may be, our guys are going to have to deal with living and working in a nightmare.



no really what would it take for bush and co. to do that would change your mind and support him?


----------



## manu1959 (Oct 3, 2005)

xen said:
			
		

> I didnt really mean that as a threat. Just saying that if you knew me as a person, and not faceless internet/conspiracy/liberal/nutball/retard/etc, you would be more respectful.



no i wouldn't


----------



## Hagbard Celine (Oct 4, 2005)

> no really what would it take for bush and co. to do that would change your mind and support him?



They would have to make one policy that actually works. :duh3:


----------



## manu1959 (Oct 4, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> They would have to make one policy that actually works. :duh3:



well pick a policy and give us your fix.....


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Oct 4, 2005)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> well pick a policy and give us your fix.....



A little increased diplomacy would be nice, this whole with us or against us chest beating thing is inspiring at first, but it's too simplistic a worldview today - at least in my opinion.


----------



## Annie (Oct 4, 2005)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> A little increased diplomacy would be nice, this whole with us or against us chest beating thing is inspiring at first, but it's too simplistic a worldview today - at least in my opinion.



I would like to know just how much more diplomacy could be tried? It's not like this or previous administrations had not attempted to get the UN, NATO, etc to engage, shoulder some of the responsibility-thus being involved and committed. Unfortunately while long suspected, it's been revealed just how corrupt the UN and many key players were; regarding not only Iraq and the Oil for Food program, but many others also-including some in the IAEA. 

When the wolves are guarding the sheep, there are problems in dealing with these kinds of 'protectors'-we won't even go into the UN troops that were involved in raping and looting. Yet over and over again, the most 'sensible', keep arguing for 'diplomacy.' With whom? Chirac? Schroeder? Putin? 

We have a wide coalition, with the exception of US, UK, AU, Japan, and Italy, they are fledgling democracies, without much money/armies to back them up. One bonus on this, they weren't the ones corrupted by the 'international coalition.' 

The US has made mistakes, many of them in the past regarding dictators and regimes. When made, they were thought to be in our own interests or for our own expediency. I think we are still seeing the vestigages of this in Saudi Arabia, but those misconceptions are falling and fast. 9/11 really did change many things and people.  Just like we do not have to wait for the UN to 'act'; we are also free to act because we have the long built up military that others do not.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Oct 4, 2005)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> I would like to know just how much more diplomacy could be tried? It's not like this or previous administrations had not attempted to get the UN, NATO, etc to engage, shoulder some of the responsibility-thus being involved and committed. Unfortunately while long suspected, it's been revealed just how corrupt the UN and many key players were; regarding not only Iraq and the Oil for Food program, but many others also-including some in the IAEA.
> 
> When the wolves are guarding the sheep, there are problems in dealing with these kinds of 'protectors'-we won't even go into the UN troops that were involved in raping and looting. Yet over and over again, the most 'sensible', keep arguing for 'diplomacy.' With whom? Chirac? Schroeder? Putin?
> 
> ...



So what's your solution then? Close our ears to anyone who disagrees with us? There's no denying that there is corruption around the world, but you can't go on indefinitely shunning countries. At least I don't think you can. We don't have the money for it.


----------



## Annie (Oct 4, 2005)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> So what's your solution then? Close our ears to anyone who disagrees with us? There's no denying that there is corruption around the world, but you can't go on indefinitely shunning countries. At least I don't think you can. We don't have the money for it.




You deal with those that do understand and yes, ignor those that are arguing from a postition of corruption or worse. Diplomacy is ongoing, whether one recognizes it or not, Iraq was a major diplomatic move. No doubt, those that truly believed we would not act, now know we will. That will be taken into consideration from now on.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Oct 4, 2005)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> You deal with those that do understand and yes, ignor those that are arguing from a postition of corruption or worse. Diplomacy is ongoing, whether one recognizes it or not, Iraq was a major diplomatic move. No doubt, those that truly believed we would not act, now know we will. That will be taken into consideration from now on.



And is that working right now? Perhaps in 20 years you can look me up and send me a "I told you so" letter. I actually hope this happens.


----------



## manu1959 (Oct 4, 2005)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> A little increased diplomacy would be nice, this whole with us or against us chest beating thing is inspiring at first, but it's too simplistic a worldview today - at least in my opinion.



so was 12 years of diplomacy and 18 UN resolutions was not enough....fair enough......how many times do you ask your son to clean his room before you threaten him....before you clean it for him?


----------



## Annie (Oct 4, 2005)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> And is that working right now? Perhaps in 20 years you can look me up and send me a "I told you so" letter. I actually hope this happens.


Well the other brought us 9/11; USS Cole; African Embassies; Beirut; WTC I; Gulf War I, (which we and the 'civilized' world obviously learned little from)....


----------



## Said1 (Oct 4, 2005)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> A little increased diplomacy would be nice, this whole with us or against us chest beating thing is inspiring at first, but it's too simplistic a worldview today - at least in my opinion.



Define more? 


Diplomacy tends to involve trade offs, in the form of agreements. Give and take.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Oct 4, 2005)

manu1959 said:
			
		

> so was 12 years of diplomacy and 18 UN resolutions was not enough....fair enough......how many times do you ask your son to clean his room before you threaten him....before you clean it for him?



That's not really the original point I was trying to get at. More or less, I can agree with the fact that diplomacy to Iraq failed. My personal opinion is that the diplomacy was not performed well, but the point is diplomacy failed, and so starting the war to make a point I can understand.

My problem is, I don't believe that the solution that applied in Iraq is one that applies even to the rest of the middle east, let alone the world. Diplomacy is still being tried with North Korea, after all.

I guess I feel that, with this administration, and probably Clinton's as well, but certainly this administration, the diplomatic skill level is relatively low. And when it ultimately fails, the feeling is to turn everything into a dichotomy, and I just don't think the world is that simple. The world can not be divided into with us or against us. Obviously there is disagreeance on that.


----------



## Said1 (Oct 4, 2005)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> That's not really the original point I was trying to get at. More or less, I can agree with the fact that diplomacy to Iraq failed. My personal opinion is that the diplomacy was not performed well, but the point is diplomacy failed, and so starting the war to make a point I can understand.
> 
> My problem is, I don't believe that the solution that applied in Iraq is one that applies even to the rest of the middle east, let alone the world. Diplomacy is still being tried with North Korea, after all.
> 
> I guess I feel that, with this administration, and probably Clinton's as well, but certainly this administration, the diplomatic skill level is relatively low. And when it ultimately fails, the feeling is to turn everything into a dichotomy, and I just don't think the world is that simple. The world can not be divided into with us or against us. Obviously there is disagreeance on that.



Again, diplomcay is give AND take......list the reasons WHY diplomcay failed to have an impact on wheather or not Saddam complied with agreements that kept him in power? Simply saying diplomcay failed is not good enough, you are not addressing the reasons for failure or why it was so low.


----------



## Hagbard Celine (Oct 4, 2005)

> Again, diplomcay is give AND take......list the reasons WHY diplomcay failed to have an impact on wheather or not Saddam complied with agreements that kept him in power? Simply saying diplomcay failed is not good enough, you are not addressing the reasons for failure or why it was so low.



Diplomacy didn't fail.  The Bush administration never tried diplomacy.  Saddam kept his agreement to stop WMD and nuclear programs.  The Bush Administration's attempt at diplomacy was giving Saddam an ultimatum to "disarm" his WMD, which he never had, and then using military force to take him out of power.  What great diplomacy.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Oct 4, 2005)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Again, diplomcay is give AND take......list the reasons WHY diplomcay failed to have an impact on wheather or not Saddam complied with agreements that kept him in power? Simply saying diplomcay failed is not good enough, you are not addressing the reasons for failure or why it was so low.



I think a large portion of the failure is because our diplomats aren't well skilled. That's not a Bush thing or a Clinton thing.

I think we made a mistake after the first time Saddam kicked out weapons inspectors. If ever there was a time to invade a country, it'd be after a bone-head move like that.

I also think the job should have been finished the first time around in the early 90's... but that's a bit of arm-chair quarterbacking on my part.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Oct 4, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> Diplomacy didn't fail.  The Bush administration never tried diplomacy.  Saddam kept his agreement to stop WMD and nuclear programs.  The Bush Administration's attempt at diplomacy was giving Saddam an ultimatum to "disarm" his WMD, which he never had, and then using military force to take him out of power.  What great diplomacy.



Perhaps, but he was a total asshole about it. Anytime a country is under the microscope like Iraq was, you have to be a pretty big dick to be kicking out UN weapon inspectors. The war should have started the day after he kicked out inspectors the first time.


----------



## Said1 (Oct 4, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> Diplomacy didn't fail.  The Bush administration never tried diplomacy.  Saddam kept his agreement to stop WMD and nuclear programs.  The Bush Administration's attempt at diplomacy was giving Saddam an ultimatum to "disarm" his WMD, which he never had, and then using military force to take him out of power.  What great diplomacy.



WMD were not the only terms to the Ceasefire Agreement, the no-fly zone restrictions were violated as well, these things also ensured his continued rule of Iraq.


----------



## Said1 (Oct 4, 2005)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> I think a large portion of the failure is because our diplomats aren't well skilled. That's not a Bush thing or a Clinton thing.



I think you're wrong, Saddam did get a pretty sweet deal the first time.The UN made out pretty good too, who also happened to play a role in "diplomacy" the first time. The continued flow of oil and captial into global (i.e: our)  econmies was secured as well. I think that's pretty freeken good, IMHO.



> I think we made a mistake after the first time Saddam kicked out weapons inspectors. If ever there was a time to invade a country, it'd be after a bone-head move like that.



I don't know, timing is everything. Then there's the UN, and those who supported them on all sides. The UN controlled oodles of petro dollars, I would speculate that discontinuing oil for food would be bad for a lot of people.



> I also think the job should have been finished the first time around in the early 90's... but that's a bit of arm-chair quarterbacking on my part.



Sure, but who would replace him?


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Oct 4, 2005)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Sure, but who would replace him?



Me?


----------



## Hagbard Celine (Oct 4, 2005)

> WMD were not the only terms to the Ceasefire Agreement, the no-fly zone restrictions were violated as well, these things also ensured his continued rule of Iraq.



WMD may not have been the only terms of the ceasefire agreement, but they were the only terms of the invasion.  We knew then and we know now that those terms were bogus.

The Bush admin's definition of "diplomacy" was give an impossible ultimatum they could never meet and then invade.  I fail to see the "give and take" in that.

US Demanding An "Occupation Agreement?"


----------



## Said1 (Oct 4, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> WMD may not have been the only terms of the ceasefire agreement, but they were the only terms of the invasion.  We knew then and we know now that those terms were bogus.
> 
> The Bush admin's definition of "diplomacy" was give an impossible ultimatum they could never meet and then invade.  I fail to see the "give and take" in that.
> 
> US Demanding An "Occupation Agreement?"



Clearly, you fail to see a lot of things.


Let's break this down a little more, from the beginning, player by player (I know this is a very simplified version of events, but it puts things in perspective....just a little).

Positive impacts resulting from ceasefire agreements, upon whom:

UN= oil for food = control of oodles of petrol dollars (approx 72%,  2.2% covers administration of the UN Office, 0.8% funds the UN arms inspectors in Iraq) dispersed in just about anyway they see fit, in compliance with sanctioned items, and above noted exceptions.

Saddam = Complying with Cease Fire Agreement =  retains power + some control of petro dollars to spend on what he wants (outside the realm of sanctions of course. LOL.)since the UN is in control of shopping for food and other nessesities for his country. 

USA/Britain (specifically) = protected interests in area + preventing  threat of theocratic take over, which would, in effect have a negative impact on other countries faced with the same threat i.e: Saudi Arabia.


World = flow of oil  + capital from the middle east into their economies = good

Now, we all know the inspectors didn't finish their job in Iraq. At the time they left Iraq, it was also extremely apparent that Saddam wasn't going to comply with anything peacefully regardless of what was found and how many ceasefire terms he violated. To me, that would terminate any preceeding agreements ensuring his rule of Iraq.

Question: Who stands to lose the most in the above scenario? 

On the other hand, I could be wrong about everything. Saddam might really be an nice guy trapped in an evil dictators body, I guess we'll never know now, thanks to failed diplomcay.


----------



## manu1959 (Oct 4, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> WMD may not have been the only terms of the ceasefire agreement, but they were the only terms of the invasion.  We knew then and we know now that those terms were bogus.
> 
> The Bush admin's definition of "diplomacy" was give an impossible ultimatum they could never meet and then invade.  I fail to see the "give and take" in that.
> 
> US Demanding An "Occupation Agreement?"



read resolution 1 through 18 written by the UN security council and the terms of the cease fire of gulf war I ...... after 12 years bush said fuck it we are going to do something about this ......

if gore had been elected would the WTC's have been attacked....the answer is yes OBL delared war on the US during the clinto admin.  the WTC attack was coming no matter who was in charge....or had you forgotten the first attack....the question is would gore have attacked afganistan?  and when they all fled to iraq......would he still be at the un talking?


----------



## Annie (Oct 4, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> WMD may not have been the only terms of the ceasefire agreement, but they were the only terms of the invasion.  We knew then and we know now that those terms were bogus.
> 
> The Bush admin's definition of "diplomacy" was give an impossible ultimatum they could never meet and then invade.  I fail to see the "give and take" in that.
> 
> US Demanding An "Occupation Agreement?"



I'm really sorry, I've tried to take into consideration your being a j-student at one of the 'biggies' by your own call-in GA no less, whatever. In any case, you are a student. But nevertheless, with this thread you have also proven that you are an asshat.

Really I'm sorry about that. See in the normal turn of events, you being a j-student and all, you would get that after less than 10 months in office, GW hadn't really dealt with foreign affairs. Actually, he had shown a marked indifference to such, easily enough discerned by an aware j-student-with a political bent. Easy to find out that many of his supporters were pretty upset with him, considering in the spring of the year before, al Queda had hit the USS Cole, an act of war that all discerning folks were dismayed that Clinton had brushed off. Then there was the Chinese taking our disabled plane. Again, people were dismayed that it was allowed to ride.

Now it took the magnitude of 9/11, a bit of overkill, pardon the real bad taste pun, to get his attention. That did do it though. Even with that, while Afghanistan came in October; Iraq waited until 3/03 to commence. Why? To try and deal with diplomacy. We shouldn't have bothered, would have been quicker to hit in 12/01.


----------



## Gunny (Oct 4, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> Blind allegiance to a failing policy doesn't make you patriotic, it makes you stubborn.  I support the idea of bringing our troops home so that they can actually enjoy their American freedoms and live in a place where they can see their families and keep the use of all their limbs.  How's that for supporting our troops?



Yeah, just ignore AQ and like-minded terrorist organizations who would LOVE for you to get your way so they can operate with impunity and get back to planning and/or carrying out more attacks against us.

Just how much "freedom" do you think there is going to be if we get attacked a coupel of times?  You lefties can whine and cry all you want, but a couple more attacks and you can kiss your precious civil liberties goodbye.  

Survival will trump your petty, selfish desires.


----------



## no1tovote4 (Oct 5, 2005)

Hagbard Celine said:
			
		

> WMD may not have been the only terms of the ceasefire agreement, but they were the only terms of the invasion.  We knew then and we know now that those terms were bogus.
> 
> The Bush admin's definition of "diplomacy" was give an impossible ultimatum they could never meet and then invade.  I fail to see the "give and take" in that.
> 
> US Demanding An "Occupation Agreement?"


[/quote]

The only way you can believe this is if you think the only speech ever made on why we were invading was the SOTU Address and the only reason ever given was in the letter to Congress.  There are more than one person in any administration.  I remember hearing Colin Powell talk about the cease fire agreements as well as WMD during the UN.  I remember hearing about the violation of Cease Fire agreements from other members of the administration as well.  It is easy to ignore reality and other evidence that you don't want to hear when you are falling into schadenfreude and the harm created will actually make you feel good, but it isn't historically accurate by any means.


----------

