We Support the Troops?

[real american]

The Dims are at it again, they give President Bush an Ultamatium to begin Troop pullout or they will not allow another Troop Support Bill on the Floor for a vote. This is outragous , especially when it seems that the Surge is working and we are gaining ground over the insurgents there. Maybe that why they want spending cut-off. Lord knows their political dreams of having absolute power on Capital hill might be in jeopordy should things go good for us in Iraq when they have been telling everybody we are loosing. This is Stupidity and Foolishness and our fighting forces are paying the price and the American People had better take notice.

I found this Article written by Hal Lindsey and he says it way better than I ever could

http://hallindsey.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=218&Itemid=28

[Upchurch]

I found this Article written by Hal Lindsey and he says it way better than I ever could
Well, that's your first mistake. Hal Lindsey is a nut job.


The Dims are at it again, they give President Bush an Ultamatium to begin Troop pullout or they will not allow another Troop Support Bill on the Floor for a vote.
Yeah, Ed forbid congress do their job and keep the president's previously free reign in check.

[quixotecoyote]

Oh noes! Our troops is in trouble if da Dims make dem come home!!!!111!!

eta: We really need a kids section on this forum.

[Skeptic Ginger]

And Now for Something Completely Different....

Ex-Top Commander Endorses Pullout Bill (http://news.aol.com/story/_a/ex-top-commander-endorses-pullout-bill/20071121215109990001)WASHINGTON (Nov. 21) - Retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top commander in Iraq shortly after the fall of Baghdad, said this week he supports Democratic legislation that calls for most troops to come home within a year....

...The Pentagon on Tuesday said that as many as 200,000 civilian employees and contractors will begin receiving layoff warnings by Christmas unless Congress approves a war spending bill that President Bush will sign.

Iraq Study Group urges troop withdrawal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1965192,00.html)George Bush today came under increased pressure to change course on Iraq as a bipartisan committee urged the White House to "chart a new way forward".

In presenting the Iraq Study Group's (ISG) much-awaited report, one of its joint-chairmen Lee Hamilton, said the "ship of state has hit rough waters and must chart a new way forward".

The panel's key recommendations call for a new diplomatic initiative in Iraq and the region, coupled with a change in the primary mission of US forces in Iraq from combat to training.

As expected, the report set no timetable for withdrawal but it urged the Bush administration to start the process sooner rather than later by withdrawing all combat troops by early 2008.

So contrary to your OP, not everyone agrees with your O'Reillyesque conclusion.

Maybe you should consider the possibility the NeoCon-artists have you fooled.

[Oliver]

Oh noes! Our troops is in trouble if da Dims make dem come home!!!!111!!

eta: We really need a kids section on this forum.


That's actually true - they may be homeless, without psychological
care or even ANY opportunity at home ... :(

[gtc]

That's actually true - they may be homeless, without psychological
care or even ANY opportunity at home ... :(

Would Ron Paul pay for the psychological care and homeless shelters needed by these people?

[Puppycow]

Which troops do you support, Real American? The ones who want to stay there or the ones who want to come home? If some troops want to come home, but you want them to stay there against their wills, is that really "support"?

[Puppycow]

Here's my proposal: Simple 1-question poll for the troops:

Question: Would you rather be home with your family right now?
If more troops answer yes than no, then "supporting" the troops means bringing them home. If more answer no than yes, then "supporting" them means keeping them there.

Deal?

[Oliver]

Would Ron Paul pay for the psychological care and homeless shelters needed by these people?


He would since he actually cares about the troops instead
sending them into bull-wars. BTW: How many years did your
favored candidate serve? :rolleyes:

Which troops do you support, Real American? The ones who want to stay there or the ones who want to come home? If some troops want to come home, but you want them to stay there against their wills, is that really "support"?


What is this Troops-Crap about anyway? It's almost 2008 years
after the fictitious birth of someone praying peace.

http://250kb.de/u/071128/p/bc1b033c.png

[KoihimeNakamura]

But Ron Paul can't, as .. you know what? Your posts are too easy at times.

[Oliver]

But Ron Paul can't, as .. you know what? Your posts are too easy at times.


Ron Paul can't "what"? :confused:

[KoihimeNakamura]

To do that would require money. From somewhere.

[Oliver]

To do that would require money. From somewhere.


And? ... Paul's solution is to end the war -aka- "safe the troops and money".
If you prefer to go out and fight some stupid wars based on your tax-money...

Fine.

What about saving the money for domestic issues - the care for veterans
included? :boggled:

[KoihimeNakamura]

Non sequitor and it fails to understand what would happen if we had no war. (Here's a hint, we'd be able to maintain spending levels only for a little while.)

[Oliver]

Non sequitor and it fails to understand what would happen if we had no war. (Here's a hint, we'd be able to maintain spending levels only for a little while.)


What do you mean by temporarily? For what purposes would
you spend this money? :

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-3.html

[Chaos]

He would since he actually cares about the troops instead
sending them into bull-wars. BTW: How many years did your
favored candidate serve? :rolleyes:

Except that he would NOT, since he is a Libertarian, and Libertarians expect the free market to take care of such things.

And with what money would he do it, anyway, considering how radically he suggests to shrink the federal budget?

[KoihimeNakamura]

Where do you expect it to come from Oliver?

[Darth Rotor]

real american

Learn a new sound byte.

The vagueness of "Support the Troops" is a short hand for people hiding behind the symbol of a soldier in uniform. ETA: when I got back a bit over three years ago, I was filled with somewhat mixed emotions. One was an intense pride and admiration for the folks still over there, polishing the policy turd one day at a time, in a hard, hot, hostile environment. The other was considerable bitterness at how that faithful service was being abused by some remarkably bad policy decisions in the Executive Branch, and at an Information Campaign that was pathetic in its structure and execution. I am still amazed at how many of the folks over there grit their teeth and soldier on, doing their damnedest to make the policy turd shine.

Your complaint ignores a simple fact.

The Congress has the very real problem of dealing with revenue flow versus expenses. That is in the Constitution. They are the money people.

The war is, and continues to be, bloody expensive.

So, they are challenging the open ended expense account that the Pres demands.

Congress are doing their job in terms of forcing this issue.

How that influences success or failure of the actions on the ground in Iraq are open questions, questions that somewhat weightier than dollars and cents. War is a child of politics, and this war is no different. The political decisions will influence the war. That has been true since day one. Given the significance of errors in the executive branch, back when they had an open mandate, it is not surprising that Congress no longer trusts the executive branch to get it right, even if there has been a short term success, of a sort, from this surge. Presuming that this short term positive trend somehow translates into a political win, on the ground, in Iraq is, shall we say, optimistic in the extreme.

Too many players in the sandbox.

You want to keep paying the bill, kid? You will, whenever you get a job.

DR

[sinclairmcevoy]

If not for the oil, the troops would not be there IMO. I once saw an American citizen interviewed during the Gulf War. He said it all. " Ah think we should just nuke the whole damn country and go in an take their oil. I do not think the troops should be there. I wouldn't want to be. In for a penny, in for a pound.

[Thunder]

The best way to support the troops is to bring them home. Keeping them in the middle of a civil war is not showing support.

[Darth Rotor]

If not for the oil, the troops would not be there IMO. I once saw an American citizen interviewed during the Gulf War. He said it all. " Ah think we should just nuke the whole damn country and go in an take their oil. I do not think the troops should be there. I wouldn't want to be. In for a penny, in for a pound.
If not for oil, American political interest, and policy, in much of the Mid East would be profoundly different, and quite possibly indifferent.

DR

[Dr Adequate]

The Dims are at it again, they give President Bush an Ultamatium to begin Troop pullout or they will not allow another Troop Support Bill on the Floor for a vote. This is outragous , especially when it seems that the Surge is working and we are gaining ground over the insurgents there. Maybe that why they want spending cut-off. Lord knows their political dreams of having absolute power on Capital hill might be in jeopordy should things go good for us in Iraq when they have been telling everybody we are loosing. This is Stupidity and Foolishness and our fighting forces are paying the price and the American People had better take notice. According to Stars and Stripes, in February 2006, 72% of troops in Iraq wanted withdrawal within the year. (http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=34538&archive=true)

And I supported the troops. Did you?

In December 2006, a poll conducted by the Military Times reported that 65% of troops (in Iraq, at home, and elsewhere) disapproved of the way Bush had handled the war. 59% thought that the invasion should never have happened in the first place. (http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php)

It seems I'm with the troops on this one. And yourself?

The Military Times poll is an annual event, by the way, with the results published in December. It will be interesting to see what the results are this year, and which one of us will be in closer agreement with the troops.

[Ohmer]

Learn a new sound byte.

Support our troops. Elect better leaders. They deserve it.

Does that qualify as a sound byte?

How about:

I support the troops, not Bush.

I stole that one from a bumper sticker.

[Darth Rotor]

Support our troops. Elect better leaders. They deserve it.

Does that qualify as a sound byte?
A good one at that. :)

DR

[real american]

Are there some who wish the war was over, yes. Then why did you join the army? The whole reason for the army is to fight for America. A soldier does what a soldier does. No matter how much the dims may try the war shall go on.

[Cleon]

Are there some who wish the war was over, yes. Then why did you join the army? The whole reason for the army is to fight for America. A soldier does what a soldier does. No matter how much the dims may try the war shall go on.

You're intentionally dodging the point with nothing more than pure bluster.

[JoeEllison]

The "war" has been an utter failure from the start. There was no plan for after the invasion, and every step the Bush administration took led to a worsening of the situation. The failure of the surge, combined with the dynamics of the civil war, demand an immediate withdrawal of American troops. By all respectable accounts, our presence there is actually helping to drive the violence.

[Ladewig]

Are there some who wish the war was over, yes. Then why did you join the army? The whole reason for the army is to fight for America. A soldier does what a soldier does. No matter how much the dims may try the war shall go on.

Is it really necessary to refer to the Democrats as "dims"?

[Upchurch]

Are there some who wish the war was over, yes.
Who doesn't wish the war was over? For that matter, why would someone not wish the war was over?


The whole reason for the army is to fight for America. A soldier does what a soldier does. No matter how much the dims may try the war shall go on.
Actually, the whole reason for the military is to protect and defend the US. The war in Iraq does neither. It is the responsibility of the civilian government to utilize the military effectively and wisely. We do a disservice to them to do otherwise.

The military deserves better than this baloney.

[Cuddles]

eta: We really need a kids section on this forum.

We call it "Politics".;)

[Darth Rotor]

The "war" has been an utter failure from the start. There was no plan for after the invasion, and every step the Bush administration took led to a worsening of the situation. The failure of the surge, combined with the dynamics of the civil war, demand an immediate withdrawal of American troops. By all respectable accounts, our presence there is actually helping to drive the violence.
That is false, Joe. There was indeed a plan for Phases II, III and IV. I got to read it in 2004. (Not a quick read. Sort of like reading a phone book. )

Not saying the plan that eventually was approved and executed was airtight -- obviously not, given the outcome and the under resourcing for post conflict ops -- nor that some of the assumptions weren't a bit absurd, which has also been well shown, not to mention the original plan had a withdrawal timetable that seemed to many overly ambitious and optimistic.

If you have not read Rick's book "Fiasco" I'd recommend it, in terms of how he covers some of that detail. See also Cobra II, another sober assessment of what the delta was between conception and execution.

To state there was no plan is blatantly false. To assess the plan as approved as lacking would be true.

Speaking of Op Plans and phases, I think that the current state of the Op Plan for Operation Iraqi Freedom, or rather, the Op Order, is in "Phase Fourever." :p

DR

[Oliver]

Except that he would NOT, since he is a Libertarian *snip*


Off-topic and not true. Ask in the Ron Paul thread.

Where do you expect it to come from Oliver?


From money wasted in stupid wars.

443,784,000,000 (Official Cost (By now - and ONLY Iraq!) without hidden costs) : 300,000,000 (Americans) =

$1480

How would you spend your $1480?
How could a veteran spend it?

[Dr Adequate]

Are there some who wish the war was over, yes. Then why did you join the army? The whole reason for the army is to fight for America. A soldier does what a soldier does. They're still entitled to their opinion, which I support.

When they say that the war was a mistake and that they should be brought home, do you support the troops? Or do you support the Republicans and the body-bag industry?

No matter how much the dims may try the war shall go on. And to think there was a time when you guys promised to bring it to a conclusion.

[fuelair]

Are there some who wish the war was over, yes. Then why did you join the army? The whole reason for the army is to fight for America. A soldier does what a soldier does. No matter how much the dims may try the war shall go on.
Actually the reason for the military, properly used, is to make sure no one is stupid enough to fight America.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Off-topic and not true. Ask in the Ron Paul thread.




From money wasted in stupid wars.

443,784,000,000 (Official Cost (By now - and ONLY Iraq!) without hidden costs) : 300,000,000 (Americans) =

$1480

How would you spend your $1480?
How could a veteran spend it?

You are being disingeious. Where do you think Bush is getting the money, that Paul will still have?

[Oliver]

You are being disingeious. Where do you think Bush is getting the money, that Paul will still have?



Bush gets his money from Congress ... Ya know: The Democrat
Congress that was supposed to do the opposite. Yeah, I know:

DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS are two different things ....

... Hell yeah ... I see ... :boggled:

What would you do using the 1500 Bucks? That's not rhetorical,
that number is a factual one.

[quixotecoyote]

And Congress has a magic money tree in the capital building? Think!

[Normal Dude]

Then why did you join the army?

Well, personally, I joined the Army to protect my country, not go on pointless Middle East adventures. And most of my mates agree. Stop dodging and answer the questions posed in this thread.

[Oliver]

And Congress has a magic money tree in the capital building? Think!


It seems like the tax-money grows out of congresses ass. What other
explanation do you have for the willingness to waste tax-dollars?

Anyway: Sending Troops into Danger Zones is in no way a support
to anyone.

[JoeEllison]

To state there was no plan is blatantly false. To assess the plan as approved as lacking would be true.
Pardon me... they "planned" to enjoy accolades and parades, and then reap all of the oil profits. :p

The plan they had, as I understand it, was so laughably bad that it really does qualify as "no plan"... it is only a few steps away from the Bill and Ted rock band plan:

Bill: Ted, while I agree that, in time, our band will be most triumphant. The truth is, Wyld Stallyns will never be a super band until we have Eddie Van Halen on guitar.
Ted: Yes, Bill. But, I do not believe we will get Eddie Van Halen until we have a triumphant video.
Bill: Ted, it's pointless to have a triumphant video before we even have decent instruments.
Ted: Well, how can we have decent instruments when we don't really even know how to play?
Bill: That is why we NEED Eddie Van Halen!
Ted: And THAT is why we need a triumphant video.
Bill, Ted: EXCELLENT!

[Darth Rotor]

Pardon me... they "planned" to enjoy accolades and parades, and then reap all of the oil profits. :p
Please cite, for me, from the Op Plan, where those elements of the plan are.
The plan they had, as I understand it, was so laughably bad that it really does qualify as "no plan"... it is only a few steps away from the Bill and Ted rock band plan:
You are talking out of your backside.

There was a plan. It took a lot of man hours, hell, man years, to put together and get a stamp of approval on. Those who stamped "approved" were certainly guilty of demanding that a number of bad assumptions be built into the plan. No question. This has cost lives. It has cost considerable blood and treasure, a cost many hold to be a squandering of said blood and treasure.

Your comment, made in purest ignorance, ought to embarass you.

Why doesn't it?

Can you, just once, discuss this matter without an appeal to cartoonish imagery?

DR

[Darth Rotor]

How would you spend your $1480?
How could a veteran spend it?
As a veteran, I can see three courses of action.

How to spend 1480 dollars?

1. Ale and whores
2. Trip to Vegas with my wife
3. Pay the bills on daughter's college tuition, etc.

Odds are high that I choose door number three.

DR

[JoeEllison]

Can you, just once, discuss this matter without an appeal to cartoonish imagery?
Not a big Bill and Ted fan?:confused:

[Oliver]

As a veteran, I can see three courses of action.

How to spend 1480 dollars?

1. Ale and whores
2. Trip to Vegas with my wife
3. Pay the bills on daughter's college tuition, etc.

Odds are high that I choose door number three.

DR


So you agree that having 1480 bucks is better than to put it
into a foreign country with no adequate benefit?

[stanleywinthrop]

rm

[Darth Rotor]

Not a big Bill and Ted fan?:confused:
It was mildly amusing when I first saw it. I have had moments of aping their "excellent" line here and there. Beer is usually inolved. :)

That film was also the pinnacle of Keanu Reeve's acting career. :p

DR

[Darth Rotor]

So you agree that having 1480 bucks is better than to put it
into a foreign country with no adequate benefit?
Oliver, I will not honor your straw man dung with a response, other than to point out that the money is already gone, and thus there is no $1480 for my ale and whores from the government, nor was there.

I don't expect you to understand, and will not waste time explaining it to you. You have demonstrated quite well how you ignore reasoned explanations of how things work, as in anything much more complicated than you shaking hands with yourself.

DR

[Oliver]

Oliver, I will not honor your straw man dung with a response, other than to point out that the money is already gone, and thus there is no $1480 for my ale and whores from the government, nor was there.

I don't expect you to understand, and will not waste time explaining it to you. You have demonstrated quite well how you ignore reasoned explanations of how things work, as in anything much more complicated than you shaking hands with yourself.

DR


I fully understand that the 1480 bucks are gone already. I'm merely
talking about the ADDITIONAL 1480 bucks you're willing to spend ... ;)

[Darth Rotor]

I fully understand that the 1480 bucks are gone already. I'm merely
talking about the ADDITIONAL 1480 bucks you're willing to spend ... ;)
Sorry, Oliver, but there isn't $1480 worth of gummint cheese available to me any time soon. The missus and I will have to manage the tuition on our own, as we had already planned, and the ale and whores remain in the land of fantasy.

DR

[Oliver]

Sorry, Oliver, but there isn't $1480 worth of gummint cheese available to me any time soon. The missus and I will have to manage the tuition on our own, as we had already planned, and the ale and whores remain in the land of fantasy.

DR


That's very sad - indeed. But who are you supporting to support the
Troops? :)

[scissorhands]

It seems like the tax-money grows out of congresses ass. What other
explanation do you have for the willingness to waste tax-dollars?

Anyway: Sending Troops into Danger Zones is in no way a support
to anyone.

I always thought that was where troops were intended to go?

[Oliver]

I always thought that was where troops were intended to go?


Where within the constitution does it say that Soldiers have to
support the Neo-Cons and Halliburton. I really started to think that
the oath is about protecting the United States and the constitution
itself instead ... But I may be wrong about this one ...

[scissorhands]

Where within the constitution does it say that Soldiers have to
support the Neo-Cons and Halliburton. I really started to think that
the oath is about protecting the United States and the constitution
itself instead ... But I may be wrong about this one ...

So any deployment of troops is on the proviso that the military themselves support whatever flavour of democratically elected government is in place at any given time?

[Oliver]

So any deployment of troops is on the proviso that the military themselves support whatever flavour of democratically elected government is in place at any given time?


Soldiers and Presidents make their oath to the constitution.
Soldiers don't make an oath upon presidents.
President's don't make an oath upon the soldiers.

Is this so difficult to understand? :confused:

[scissorhands]

Soldiers and Presidents make their oath to the constitution.
Soldiers don't make an oath upon presidents.
President's don't make an oath upon the soldiers.

Is this so difficult to understand? :confused:

Whats so difficult to understand is what makes you think you are an expert in US constitutional affairs.

[Oliver]

Whats so difficult to understand is what makes you think you are an expert in US constitutional affairs.


Because I know that the Constitution in no way mentions imperialistic
Ideas or interventions. But who am I anyway - being a foreigner, a soldier
probably should understand this even better.... :rolleyes:

Just like you ....

[stanleywinthrop]

I always thought that was where troops were intended to go?

No, i'm afraid you missed the boat on that one. The military trains folks these days to sit around and collect paychecks. :rolleyes:

[stanleywinthrop]

Soldiers don't make an oath upon presidents.


"and this officer is to observe and follow orders and directions, from time to time, as may be given by the President of the United States of America, or other superior officers acting in accordance with the laws of the United States"

[Oliver]

"and this officer is to observe and follow orders and directions, from time to time, as may be given by the President of the United States of America, or other superior officers acting in accordance with the laws of the United States"


I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD.


Now what does have the higher priority - the Constiwhat or the Presinut?

[scissorhands]

I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD.


Now what does have the higher priority - the Constiwhat or the Presinut?

Do you believe that it depends on the political leanings of the military personnel, of any given country, to decide whether to follow the orders of their democratically elected government?
If so, I presume you would like such a precedent applied to your own?

[Ziggurat]

I've run into this issue with Oliver before. When pressed, he will admit that civilians should control the military. But he doesn't really believe that's a very important principle, because he continually casts it aside for the sake of his anti-Bush hysteria. Oliver is, when it gets right down to it, an illiberal person and unprincipled person.

[Oliver]

Do you believe that it depends on the political leanings of the military personnel, of any given country, to decide whether to follow the orders of their democratically elected government?
If so, I presume you would like such a precedent applied to your own?


I have to admit that I probably would be the Lemming as well being
unsure about a possible threat. Since we know that Iraq never was
a threat, it's safe to say that it was made up. In this case I would
complain all the time to my comrades about listening to the constitution
instead a nut listening to a god leading the country into war. Because
Nuts are clearly violating the oath to the constitution.

And I served my time in the Army as well - here in Germany.

[DoubtingStephen]

Our armed forces are full of brave and unselfish men and women who are willing to put their lives on the line to protect this country from real, actual threats.

We do them a very great disservice when we exploit their loyalty and courage by sending them on a fool's errand, and I think we all know who the fool is.

[scissorhands]

I have to admit that I probably would be the Lemming as well being
unsure about a possible threat. Since we know that Iraq never was
a threat, it's safe to say that it was made up. In this case I would
complain all the time to my comrades about listening to the constitution
instead a nut listening to a god leading the country into war. Because
Nuts are clearly violating the oath to the constitution.

And I served my time in the Army as well - here in Germany.

The questions were pretty specific.
Care to answer them?

[Oliver]

Our armed forces are full of brave and unselfish men and women who are willing to put their lives on the line to protect this country from real, actual threats.

We do them a very great disservice when we exploit their loyalty and courage by sending them on a fool's errand, and I think we all know who the fool is.


It's 2008. There are no Evildoers who are able to take over America,
no matter how often Idiots talk about Sozialism, Terrorism, Cuba,
Iran, Iraq, communists or whatever. They may kick some asses, but
that's it. If the most dominant military power in the world is paranoid
about the rest of the world, then it's time for a regime-change - because
it's like a 2 Meter-Man whining about a baby having a water-pistol.

It's getting annoying to hear this ****.

And it isn't supporting the Troops anyway. They're in no way
protecting the US - they're just playing Lemmings for the current
Administrations Empire-Agenda.

AKA: Unconstitutional

[stanleywinthrop]

I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD.


Now what does have the higher priority - the Constiwhat or the Presinut?

Your propensity towards self-delusion is staggering.

[stanleywinthrop]

AKA: Unconstitutional

Having this german lecture me on what is constitutional is like having a preacher lecture me on how to behave in a whorehouse.

[Oliver]

Having a german lecture me on what is constitutional is like having a preacher lecture me on how to behave in a whorehouse.


I was in the Army - which means we have a military over here as
well. But in contrast to the US, we don't send them anywhere
without a major debate, we do not worship them like some other
stupid idiots living in another forgotten century in which war is
something heroic. And we especially don't lie them into wars.

How heoric! :rolleyes:

But of course - America is #1. So everything they do will always
serve the troops - no matter if they die in vain or not.

"Backward Idiots".

"it's like a 2 Meter-Man whining about a baby having a water-pistol."

[Dr Adequate]

It's 2008. There are no Evildoers who are able to take over America ... Oh you know how hurt I feel when you say that.

[stanleywinthrop]

I was in the Army - which means we have a military over here as
well. But in contrast to the US, we don't send them anywhere
without a major debate, we do not worship them like some other
stupid idiots living in another forgotten century in which war is
something heroic. And we especially don't lie them into wars.


Oliver you are absolutly correct. Germany has never (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WW_I) done anything like that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II).

[Oliver]

Oh you know how hurt I feel when you say that.


It wasn't meant to hurt you anyway.

But it was meant to wake people up who believe every crap and
scaremongering they hear about Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Korea, China,
Russia, Timbuktu, Mars.

There is no hope for the whiny wieners who still swallow this
ssss being presented by their even stupider government.

It's time for someone who actually cares about the truth by
shifting away from militarily stupidity.

[gumboot]

Anyway: Sending Troops into Danger Zones is in no way a support
to anyone.

That's what soldiers are for. The question is whether sending them into a given danger zone provides a benefit to the United States or not.

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

Oliver you are absolutly correct. Germany has never (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WW_I) done anything like that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II).


Germany has. They learned their lessons from the Nazis. Maybe
America needs some kind of Nazi-Regime as well to wake up, I
don't know. Some might think that 2008 years after a fffffff
moron in the Bible praised about peace, there would be more
wisdom in the world. But unfortunately, many Americans praise
Wars and Troops instead. Oh man, this is sooooooo Christian.

Amen.

"Support the Troops - let them die for nothing!"

[Oliver]

That's what soldiers are for. The question is whether sending them into a given danger zone provides a benefit to the United States or not.

-Gumboot


Since the US once again saved us from the WMD's that were
supposed to blow up the planet, I'm thankful as well. I like the
Idea that the Troops die for this holy purpose. Let them stay
there to prevent us from further Earth-Destructions. Praise the
lord who guided Bush to protect the Troops.

Are you seriously supporting this crap?

[Dr Adequate]

I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD.


Now what does have the higher priority - the Constiwhat or the Presinut? So who decides who counts as a "domestic enemy" of the constitution?

(a) The President?
(b) Congress?
(c) The Supreme Court?
(d) Ron Paul?

[gumboot]

I was in the Army - which means we have a military over here as
well. But in contrast to the US, we don't send them anywhere
without a major debate, we do not worship them like some other
stupid idiots living in another forgotten century in which war is
something heroic. And we especially don't lie them into wars.



Those "stupid idiots" of "another forgotten century" are the only reason Western Civilisation exists today. As a German you, of all people, should be grateful of that.

-Gumboot

[stanleywinthrop]

So who decides who counts as a "domestic enemy" of the constitution?

(a) The President?
(b) Congress?
(c) The Supreme Court?
(d) Ron Paul?


The answer is (d), after paul is elected to (a) and declares (b) and (c) unconstitutional.

For only the great paul has the vision to decipher what is unconstitutional and to ignore 230 years of legislation and case law.

[gumboot]

Are you seriously supporting this crap?


Which crap?

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

Those "stupid idiots" of "another forgotten century" are the only reason Western Civilisation exists today. As a German you, of all people, should be grateful of that.

-Gumboot


I am - as long I see a purpose. And no - lies are no purpose.
That's not protecting Troops - it's straightway endangering them,
not mentioning civilians.

[Oliver]

Which crap?

-Gumboot


Crap = Iraqi WMD's
Crap = Jihadists being the "threat of the century" :rolleyes:
Crap = Iran taking over the 10,000 American WMD's :rolleyes:
Crap = "Support our dying Troops"

[gumboot]

Germany has. They learned their lessons from the Nazis.


I honestly don't think you have. In fact, I think you've missed that lesson entirely.

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

I honestly don't think you have. In fact, I think you've missed that lesson entirely.

-Gumboot


Sure - we forgot to invade Neuseeland. :rolleyes: Let's not forget: They
are a possible threat in tenthousand years from now. :boggled:

[gumboot]

I am - as long I see a purpose. And no - lies are no purpose.
That's not protecting Troops - it's straightway endangering them,
not mentioning civilians.


Who said anything about "protecting" troops? Their job is to be placed in harms way. Their duty is to be endangered. So that civilians are not.

Just because Germany and New Zealand are only willing to use their soldiers as dishwashers for the UN doesn't mean every country has forgotten the expensive lesson that the League of Nations taught us.

-Gumboot

[JoeEllison]

I always thought that was where troops were intended to go?

Yes and no. The sacrifice of the troops is not to be made lightly, or under unnecessary circumstances. Invading Iraq wasn't a mission worthy of the price. The troops(and I was one of them) should be between the rest of the country and real threats, and Iraq was clearly no threat to America.

[gumboot]

Crap = Iraqi WMD's

No I don't believe Iraq poses a WMD threat.


Crap = Jihadists being the "threat of the century" :rolleyes:

No I don't believe "Jihadists" are the "threat of the century"


Crap = Iran taking over the 10,000 American WMD's :rolleyes:

No I don't believe Iran is talking over 10,000 American WMDs (and where on earth did this one come from?)


Crap = "Support our dying Troops"

New Zealand has one serviceperson in Iraq and they have my absolute unwavering support in their role as UNAMI Assistant Military Advisor. To the best of my knowledge he or she is not dying.

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

Who said anything about "protecting" troops? Their job is to be placed in harms way. Their duty is to be endangered. So that civilians are not.

Just because Germany and New Zealand are only willing to use their soldiers as dishwashers for the UN doesn't mean every country has forgotten the expensive lesson that the League of Nations taught us.

-Gumboot


Unless you're prejudiced, you have a hard time to make any sense
out of Iraq and the Iran issue. There may be a purpose behind it in
American Interest, but being to cowardice to tell the truth is in no
way supporting the troops.

The US doesn't even need an army having 10,000 nukes. No State
would be dumb enough to even tickle those striking powers.

Iran is quite cheeky - but surely no threat at all, taking their history
into account. Threatening them means threatening Americas Troops.
But the Lemmings will obey and cheer their troops anyway for what-
ever BS.

[Undesired Walrus]

Iran is quite cheeky - but surely no threat at all, taking their history
into account.

It's always cheeky to deny the holocaust, supply Hezbollah and give weapons to the sunni in Iraq. Oh what a riot!

As for supporting the troops, it's funny over in Britain as it is quite possibly the most right wing thing you could ever do to cheer them on, just war or not. Mostly the fault of The 'Support Our Lads' Sun.

The US doesn't even need an army having 10,000 nukes.

11th September.

[stanleywinthrop]

The US doesn't even need an army having 10,000 nukes. No State
would be dumb enough to even tickle those striking powers.

.

This just in--a confused german accidently discovered the U.S.'s new foreign policy!

"You even think about attacking us will wipe your country from the earth!"

Brilliant!

[Oliver]

It's always cheeky to deny the holocaust, supply Hezbollah and give weapons to the sunni in Iraq. Oh what a riot!

As for supporting the troops, it's funny over in Britain as it is quite possibly the most right wing thing you could ever do to cheer them on, just war or not. Mostly the fault of The 'Support Our Lads' Sun.

11th September.


Free Speech! America loves it - and Iran surely does it at well.
Now which country is the invading one again??? :confused:

[Oliver]

This just in--a confused german accidently discovered the U.S.'s new foreign policy!

"You even think about attacking us will wipe your country from the earth!"

Brilliant!


Did you see McCains respone in the debates - it was quite
striking to see him opposing War, Torture and Weapons. Gee,
what a loser concerning our support for War and Troops ...
and what does he know anyway as a tortured War-Veteran?



pl1WvHxT8Bs

[gumboot]

Free Speech! America loves it - and Iran surely does it at well.


That's ironic coming from the citizen of a country where you get locked up for denying the Holocaust.

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

That's ironic coming from the citizen of a country where you get locked up for denying the Holocaust.

-Gumboot


Incorrect. I can deny the Holocaust all I want as long I don't
publish hate-speech. Oh wait - being in favor of human life
rather than supporting troops and nazis is wrong, right?

Anyway - off-topic. And you know that.

[Undesired Walrus]

Free Speech! America loves it - and Iran surely does it at well.

When it comes to their women and pictures of people kissing, not so much.

Once again, we are back at the stage where you must clear up for me how you would feel if Bush stood on a podium and shouted 'With Placards in their hands, they (In the Bible belt) shout 'Death to the Homosexuals''. Would you come onto JREF saying Bush was no threat to the lives of Homosexuals?

[gumboot]

Incorrect. I can deny the Holocaust all I want as long I don't
publish hate-speech. Oh wait - being in favor of human life
rather than supporting troops and nazis is wrong, right?

Anyway - off-topic. And you know that.


You're the one who took us off topic by raising the issue of Iran.

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

When it comes to their women and pictures of people kissing, not so much.

Once again, we are back at the stage where you must clear up for me how you would feel if Bush stood on a podium and shouted 'With Placards in their hands, they (In the Bible belt) shout 'Death to the Homosexuals''. Would you come onto JREF saying Bush was no threat to the lives of Homosexuals?


Yeah - let "our troops die for the Gays and Women dying in Iran while
we don't care about the Gays and Women dying in our Buddies Saudi-Arabia".
Stop being a hypocrite about the world. Go and crap in your pants off-line.
This thread is about supporting the Troops. Not sending them to death
for purposes we allow in other countries.

[Oliver]

You're the one who took us off topic by raising the issue of Iran.

-Gumboot


Iran is about supporting the Troops as well. Every intervention means
a threat of retaliation in Iraq from Iranian side. How do I know that?
Well, I know what happened once Iraq pissed them off. But of course,
that doesn't bother you. Everything the US does is heroic...

But I don't care - you are from a military family as well.

Anyway: What do you think about McCains response to torture and
not owning a gun anymore. He is an American Hero - What changed
his mind - you still don't get?

[Foster Zygote]

real american

Learn a new sound byte.

The vagueness of "Support the Troops" is a short hand for people hiding behind the symbol of a soldier in uniform. ETA: when I got back a bit over three years ago, I was filled with somewhat mixed emotions. One was an intense pride and admiration for the folks still over there, polishing the policy turd one day at a time, in a hard, hot, hostile environment. The other was considerable bitterness at how that faithful service was being abused by some remarkably bad policy decisions in the Executive Branch, and at an Information Campaign that was pathetic in its structure and execution. I am still amazed at how many of the folks over there grit their teeth and soldier on, doing their damnedest to make the policy turd shine.

Your complaint ignores a simple fact.

The Congress has the very real problem of dealing with revenue flow versus expenses. That is in the Constitution. They are the money people.

The war is, and continues to be, bloody expensive.

So, they are challenging the open ended expense account that the Pres demands.

Congress are doing their job in terms of forcing this issue.

How that influences success or failure of the actions on the ground in Iraq are open questions, questions that somewhat weightier than dollars and cents. War is a child of politics, and this war is no different. The political decisions will influence the war. That has been true since day one. Given the significance of errors in the executive branch, back when they had an open mandate, it is not surprising that Congress no longer trusts the executive branch to get it right, even if there has been a short term success, of a sort, from this surge. Presuming that this short term positive trend somehow translates into a political win, on the ground, in Iraq is, shall we say, optimistic in the extreme.

Too many players in the sandbox.

You want to keep paying the bill, kid? You will, whenever you get a job.

DR

Well said. Damned well said.

[Undesired Walrus]

Yeah - let "our troops die for the Gays and Women dying in Iran while
we don't care about the Gays and Women dying in our Buddies Saudi-Arabia".


Stop being a hypocrite about the world.

As far as I remember, you got your pants in a twist about Saudi Arabia when you asked me questions a while back about whether I thought it was hypocritical of the US. I replied exactly, and you can check this, 'Yes I do think it is hypocritical'.

It's always interesting how you lift views about the world from other people, political views from daft politicians, and a foriegn constitution, to reinforce your anti-American views, grafting them onto your skin, then using them against the very people you stole them from. Because you cannot make views of your own. Gladly though, everybody here can still see the scars.

[gumboot]

Iran is about supporting the Troops as well. Every intervention means
a threat of retaliation in Iraq from Iranian side. How do I know that?
Well, I know what happened once Iraq pissed them off. But of course,
that doesn't bother you. Everything the US does is heroic...

What on earth are you talking about?



But I don't care - you are from a military family as well.

What has that got to do with anything?


Anyway: What do you think about McCains response to torture and
not owning a gun anymore. He is an American Hero - What changed
his mind - you still don't get?

Again, what on earth are you talking about? What has torture and gun ownership got to do with this thread?

-Gumboot

[Undesired Walrus]

I wonder if Oliver actually is Ron Paul.

[Oliver]

What on earth are you talking about?

What has that got to do with anything?

Again, what on earth are you talking about? What has torture and gun ownership got to do with this thread?

-Gumboot


McCain is a good example for someone who actually thought
about war, torture and death. So his opposition to owning a
gun speaks volumes about his change of mind.

I don't see any heroism at all in war. I don't see any heroism
in bullying almost third-world-countries. I don't see heroism
at all in Iraq.

What I see are cowards. And the cowards supporting those
cowards.

Intervention is fine if there is a real threat. If there is none,
there is no heroism - and much less a reason to support this
crap.

The war in Iraq is like the invasion of Poland - a crime, nothing
else. I know Americans hate to accept that for their own country,
but that's how I see it. No heroism, no "fair&balanced", no justice.

And especially no reason to "support our Troops" to continue
injustice.

[stanleywinthrop]

I wonder if Oliver actually is Ron Paul.


or rather a mentally challenged german's impersonation of paul.

[gumboot]

McCain is a good example for someone who actually thought
about war, torture and death. So his opposition to owning a
gun speaks volumes about his change of mind.

I still don't get your point. What has gun ownership got to do with supporting your nation's military?


I don't see any heroism at all in war.

Here's 1,356 examples to get you started. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_Victoria_Cross_recipients_by_nam e)



I don't see any heroism in bullying almost third-world-countries.

Neither do I.



I don't see heroism
at all in Iraq.

What I see are cowards. And the cowards supporting those
cowards.

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as Rifle Squad Leader, 4th Platoon, Company K, Third Battalion, Seventh Marines (Reinforced), Regimental Combat Team 7, First Marine Division (Reinforced), on 14 April 2004. Corporal Dunham's squad was conducting a reconnaissance mission in the town of Karabilah, Iraq, when they heard rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire erupt approximately two kilometers to the west. Corporal Dunham led his Combined Anti-Armor Team towards the engagement to provide fire support to their Battalion Commander's convoy, which had been ambushed as it was traveling to Camp Husaybah. As Corporal Dunham and his Marines advanced, they quickly began to receive enemy fire. Corporal Dunham ordered his squad to dismount their vehicles and led one of his fire teams on foot several blocks south of the ambushed convoy. Discovering seven Iraqi vehicles in a column attempting to depart, Corporal Dunham and his team stopped the vehicles to search them for weapons. As they approached the vehicles, an insurgent leaped out and attacked Corporal Dunham. Corporal Dunham wrestled the insurgent to the ground and in the ensuing struggle saw the insurgent release a grenade. Corporal Dunham immediately alerted his fellow Marines to the threat. Aware of the imminent danger and without hesitation, Corporal Dunham covered the grenade with his helmet and body, bearing the brunt of the explosion and shielding his Marines from the blast. In an ultimate and selfless act of bravery in which he was mortally wounded, he saved the lives of at least two fellow Marines. By his undaunted courage, intrepid fighting spirit, and unwavering devotion to duty, Corporal Dunham gallantly gave his life for his country, thereby reflecting great credit upon himself and upholding the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.

Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action with an armed enemy near Baghdad International Airport, Baghdad, Iraq on 4 April 2003. On that day, Sergeant First Class Smith was engaged in the construction of a prisoner of war holding area when his Task Force was violently attacked by a company-sized enemy force. Realizing the vulnerability of over 100 soldiers, Sergeant First Class Smith quickly organized a hasty defense consisting of two platoons of soldiers, one Bradley Fighting Vehicle and three armored personnel carriers. As the fight developed, Sergeant First Class Smith braved hostile enemy fire to personally engage the enemy with hand grenades and anti-tank weapons, and organized the evacuation of three wounded soldiers from an armored personnel carrier struck by a rocket propelled grenade and a 60 mm mortar round. Fearing the enemy would overrun their defenses, Sergeant First Class Smith moved under withering enemy fire to man a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on a damaged armored personnel carrier. In total disregard for his own life, he maintained his exposed position in order to engage the attacking enemy force. During this action, he was mortally wounded. His courageous actions helped defeat the enemy attack, and resulted in as many as 50 enemy soldiers killed, while allowing the safe withdrawal of numerous wounded soldiers. Sergeant First Class Smith’s extraordinary heroism and uncommon valor are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, the Third Infantry Division "Rock of the Marne," and the United States Army.

(my bolding)

Are Corporal Jason Dunham and Sergeant 1st Class Paul Smith cowards? Yes or no?



Intervention is fine if there is a real threat.

How do you tell if there's a threat or not?

-Gumboot

[stanleywinthrop]

How do you tell if there's a threat or not?

-Gumboot


By consulting with oliver beforehand. duh. :rolleyes:

[Oliver]

I still don't get your point. What has gun ownership got to do with supporting your nation's military?

Here's 1,356 examples to get you started. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_Victoria_Cross_recipients_by_nam e)

Neither do I.

(my bolding)

Are Corporal Jason Dunham and Sergeant 1st Class Paul Smith cowards? Yes or no?

How do you tell if there's a threat or not?

-Gumboot


No, neither the Corporal nor the Sergeant are cowards. The cowards
are the people sending them into unnecessary situations - especially
the cowards who support the cowards who send them there.

That's what this thread is about: Support the Troops in a honest
way by not sending them into unnecessary situations - or just
sending them to see cool CNN-Coverage of our newest Coward-
Weapons to safe our Troops life's and killing dozens of enemies
and civilians at the same time.

Americans are more War-Fanatic as Europeans are. This is pretty
clear to me whenever people stand up and applaud to someone
on television who's a member of the military. That's almost laughable
from my point of view - wouldn't it be so sad for the holy bible
belt.

[gumboot]

Americans are more War-Fanatic as Europeans are. This is pretty
clear to me whenever people stand up and applaud to someone
on television who's a member of the military.


Maybe it's just because Americans have a great deal of respect and admiration for those members of their society who are willing to sacrifice their lives to protect and defend that society.

Don't confuse respect and admiration for military personnel with love of war itself. Quite the contrary; those people that respect military personnel the most (other military personnel) also typically dislike war the most.

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

Maybe it's just because Americans have a great deal of respect and admiration for those members of their society who are willing to sacrifice their lives to protect and defend that society.

Don't confuse respect and admiration for military personnel with love of war itself. Quite the contrary; those people that respect military personnel the most (other military personnel) also typically dislike war the most.

-Gumboot


I fully understand this point of view from the American perspective,
even if it's outdated to me as European. But the point was to support
the Troops by sending them whenever there is a real threat. And the
Bush foreign policies aren't about real threats. So I strongly disagree
about that - especially if I see Kids with their Head being blown off.
Pictures the censored Media doesn't show - unfortunately.

But that's the reason why I cannot support this behavior. I still
believe in hope, diplomacy, democracy, freedom, liberty and
peace. The US didn't provide much of these points yet - and
it's not even Anti-American to think this way. It's Anti-American
to support this Anti-Americanism.

By that I mean: This is not the America I grew up with. This isn't
supporting the troops nor the hopes of people all around the globe.
You know what I mean.

[real american]

And to think there was a time when you guys promised to bring it to a conclusion.

And as recall, I remember the democrates having a plan but never gave it out. People like Ted "The Town Drunk" Kennedy say they have plains but they are not saying the plains.

[real american]

Just talk about the military and the current war the dims can't keep there mouth's shut about how wrong it is. Right or wrong those troops are doing a job. A soldier does what a soldier does. So all you whiners, young or old, If you never served in the military you don't have the right to complain about anything. If you don't like this country I'm sure Bin Laden has a home for you.

[Skeptic Ginger]

real american

Learn a new sound byte.

The vagueness of "Support the Troops" is a short hand for people hiding behind the symbol of a soldier in uniform.....

DR

Speaking of "supporting the troops" sound bytes...

Warning, some bad words, and wait for the actual song to come on. The first bit is funny but the song is the point of the link. So with that intro, I give you the Asylum Street Spankers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmsOIjzQ1V8


(Sigh...I try and try but my [ y t ] [ / y t ] gets me the box but no video. I see there is some weird code involved so I take it it has something to do with a host site?)

[Nathyn]

The Dims are at it again, they give President Bush an Ultamatium to begin Troop pullout or they will not allow another Troop Support Bill on the Floor for a vote. This is outragous , especially when it seems that the Surge is working and we are gaining ground over the insurgents there. Maybe that why they want spending cut-off. Lord knows their political dreams of having absolute power on Capital hill might be in jeopordy should things go good for us in Iraq when they have been telling everybody we are loosing. This is Stupidity and Foolishness and our fighting forces are paying the price and the American People had better take notice.

I found this Article written by Hal Lindsey and he says it way better than I ever could

http://hallindsey.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=218&Itemid=28
I'm glad they don't support the troops. I don't.

Blind militaristic nationalism is stupid.

I feel pity for the kids who were dumb enough to sign up for the military, knowing they might go off to war, but that doesn't change the fact that I disapprove of their career choice.

Really, though, troop funding bills have nothing to do with "support the troops," because it's just a general fund to support the military. You aren't just giving them food, protection, and so on. You're also lacing defense contractors' pockets with gold.

I support the troops' right to willfully object to the Iraq war out of conscience and come home, if they please, with full benefits and also increasing benefits for all veterans (which is something Republicans generally oppose -- over the years, they've steadily cut military healthcare and benefits, which is why older veterans tend to be Democrats and veterans' rights groups tend to be left-wing).

[gumboot]

I fully understand this point of view from the American perspective,
even if it's outdated to me as European. But the point was to support
the Troops by sending them whenever there is a real threat. And the
Bush foreign policies aren't about real threats. So I strongly disagree
about that - especially if I see Kids with their Head being blown off.
Pictures the censored Media doesn't show - unfortunately.

But that's the reason why I cannot support this behavior. I still
believe in hope, diplomacy, democracy, freedom, liberty and
peace. The US didn't provide much of these points yet - and
it's not even Anti-American to think this way. It's Anti-American
to support this Anti-Americanism.

By that I mean: This is not the America I grew up with. This isn't
supporting the troops nor the hopes of people all around the globe.
You know what I mean.

*yawn*

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

So all you whiners, young or old, If you never served in the military you don't have the right to complain about anything.


That's a ridiculous argument. Last time I checked the USA was a democracy, not a military dictatorship. Every citizen has the right to make comment about how their armed forces are being utilised.

-Gumboot

[real american]

That's a ridiculous argument. Last time I checked the USA was a democracy, not a military dictatorship. Every citizen has the right to make comment about how their armed forces are being utilised.

-Gumboot

I will take a quote from a famouse movie that can say it better than me.

"We live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You?"

"The Army's existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives... They use words like honor, code, loyalty. They use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. Dims use them as a punchline."

" They don't need to be complained about by people that rise and sleep under the blanket of the very freedom that they provide, and then questions the manner in which they provide it. To my I know a lot of them would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post."

the way I put it may be cheesy but it is the truth. And hats the bottom line.

[JoeEllison]

I will take a quote from a famouse movie that can say it better than me.

"We live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You?"

"The Army's existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives... They use words like honor, code, loyalty. They use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. Dims use them as a punchline."

" They don't need to be complained about by people that rise and sleep under the blanket of the very freedom that they provide, and then questions the manner in which they provide it. To my I know a lot of them would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post."

this may be cheesy but it is the truth.
The guy who said that was the BAD GUY. Maybe you need to stop, grow up a lot, and actually think about the silly little positions you hold.

[gumboot]

I will take a quote from a famouse movie that can say it better than me.

"We live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You?"

"The Army's existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives... They use words like honor, code, loyalty. They use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. Dims use them as a punchline."

" They don't need to be complained about by people that rise and sleep under the blanket of the very freedom that they provide, and then questions the manner in which they provide it. To my I know a lot of them would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post."

this may be cheesy but it is the truth.

Colonel Jessup's speech is irrelevant to this topic of discussion.

It is the fundamental right of every citizen of a democracy to have and express an opinion about the actions of their elected leaders.

People are not complaining about the specific methodology the military is using in Iraq. They're complaining about the decision of their elected civilian representatives to send the army there in the first place.

-Gumboot

[Pardalis]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmsOIjzQ1V8

(Sigh...I try and try but my [ y t ] [ / y t ] gets me the box but no video. I see there is some weird code involved so I take it it has something to do with a host site?)

KmsOIjzQ1V8

You just need to put the code (KmsOIjzQ1V8) between the yt tags.

[Lonewulf]

Just talk about the military and the current war the dims can't keep there mouth's shut about how wrong it is. Right or wrong those troops are doing a job. A soldier does what a soldier does. So all you whiners, young or old, If you never served in the military you don't have the right to complain about anything. If you don't like this country I'm sure Bin Laden has a home for you.

Ah, yes, the old "If you never served, you can't hold an opinion" argument.

About as logical as, "Soldiers died for your right to free speech, so SHUT THE HELL UP!"

You're right, the soldiers are doing a job. They're also dying, and expending valuable resources -- both economic and military. If you have arrived at the conclusion that this expenditure of resources is outweighed by the benefit, can you please show your work?

What, exactly, are we gaining in Iraq?

[Hokulele]

Just talk about the military and the current war the dims can't keep there mouth's shut about how wrong it is. Right or wrong those troops are doing a job. A soldier does what a soldier does. So all you whiners, young or old, If you never served in the military you don't have the right to complain about anything. If you don't like this country I'm sure Bin Laden has a home for you.


Considering that you have claimed to be 14 years old and cannot vote, serve, drink, or drive, why exactly should we take your opinion seriously?

[Undesired Walrus]

By his undaunted courage, intrepid fighting spirit, and unwavering devotion to duty, Corporal Dunham gallantly gave his life for his country, thereby reflecting great credit upon himself and upholding the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.


As much as it cannot be told what went through his mind, I always dislike the 'gave his life for his country' part.

It seems to me he gave his life for survival of other human life, not the flag. Isn't that a far greater honour?

[Lonewulf]

As much as it cannot be told what went through his mind, I always dislike the 'gave his life for his country' part.

It seems to me he gave his life for survival of other human life, not the flag. Isn't that a far greater honour?

Ah, you're new at this.

America > Humans.

[Mashuna]

I wonder if Oliver actually is Ron Paul.

I wonder if Oliver is actually RuPaul.

[Cleon]

So all you whiners, young or old, If you never served in the military you don't have the right to complain about anything.

Yeah...And exactly when did you serve, for how long, and what was your final rank, again?

What a silly notion.


If you don't like this country I'm sure Bin Laden has a home for you.

And combined with that bit of wisdom, you've earned the ultimate response:

:dl:

[Oliver]

That's a ridiculous argument. Last time I checked the USA was a democracy, not a military dictatorship. Every citizen has the right to make comment about how their armed forces are being utilised.

-Gumboot


Last time you said: "Last time I checked the US is a Republic
and not a Democracy". :rolleyes:

Anyway: It's stupid to think that lying People and Troops into
war is in any way honorable and support-worthy. You don't even
know what's happening on the Ground. Everything coming from
official side, presented in the Mainstream Media, is strongly
controlled and censored by Military Filters and it's media&
propaganda department.

[Oliver]

*yawn*

-Gumboot


It's about Muslims ... Thanks, that was all I wanted to know about you.

[Lonewulf]

Last time you said: "Last time I checked the US is a Republic
and not a Democracy". :rolleyes:

I hate to say it, but you're correct here.

But a constitutional republic is not a military dictatorship.

[Oliver]

I hate to say it, but you're correct here.

But a constitutional republic is not a military dictatorship.


I hate to say it but it's not that far away. Which is indeed a
strong contrast to democracy. As a hint: Propaganda is a good
measure-tool to determine such things -aka: "Support the Troops",
"This is Unpatriotic", "It's national security", "Evildoers", "Wmd's"
etc, etc, etc...

Supporting the Troops is telling the truth.

[JoeEllison]

Just talk about the military and the current war the dims can't keep there mouth's shut about how wrong it is. Right or wrong those troops are doing a job. A soldier does what a soldier does. So all you whiners, young or old, If you never served in the military you don't have the right to complain about anything. If you don't like this country I'm sure Bin Laden has a home for you.

So, you've run out of argument, and now you're reduced to name-calling and foolish outbursts. Criticizing Bush isn't anti-American. Claiming that disagreeing with a political party means you are in league with the terrorists is also seriously flawed thinking.

I would like to know much military experience you've got under your belt.

[Lonewulf]

I hate to say it but it's not that far away. Which is indeed a
strong contrast to democracy. As a hint: Propaganda is a good
measure-tool to determine such things -aka: "Support the Troops",
"This is Unpatriotic", "It's national security", "Evildoers", "Wmd's"
etc, etc, etc...
Propaganda isn't any kind of evidence. By that logic, any company trying to sell a product is evidence of a dictatorship.

I'd also add that any side tends to have it's slogans. Here's a tip: "Better Red than Dead" was not a government creation.

[real american]

So, you've run out of argument, and now you're reduced to name-calling and foolish outbursts. Criticizing Bush isn't anti-American. Claiming that disagreeing with a political party means you are in league with the terrorists is also seriously flawed thinking.

I would like to know much military experience you've got under your belt.

This is not about Bush.This is about the troops. And yes I don't have a military background. However my uncle was in iraq for some time and also was givin the MacArthur Leadership Award. I have about of total of 8 vets in my famiy. I have know right to complain, but luckly I don't see anything to complain about. So I support what the troops are doing.

[Dr Adequate]

This is not about Bush.This is about the troops. And yes I don't have a military background. However my uncle was in iraq for some time and also was givin the MacArthur Leadership Award. I have about of total of 8 vets in my famiy. I have know right to complain, but luckly I don't see anything to complain about. So I support what the troops are doing. But not what they're saying.

"I support the slaves. I support what they're doing." But if what they're doing is picking cotton for Massa, and what they're saying is that they want to be free, it seems rather equivocal to call that "support".

[Dr Adequate]

Just talk about the military and the current war the dims can't keep there mouth's shut about how wrong it is. Right or wrong those troops are doing a job. A soldier does what a soldier does. So all you whiners, young or old, If you never served in the military you don't have the right to complain about anything. Let me remind you once again that a majority of the military think that the war should never have been started in the first place.

Whereas you, I believe, have never served. More of an Internet warrior, aren't you?

So you'll forgive me if I take your advice and listen to what the soldiers are saying rather than what you're saying.

[articulett]

Ah, you're new at this.

America > Humans.

RA is a 14 year old kid cutting and pasting propaganda. He is not representative of any Americans that I know. I consider the adults dumping this crap into the brains of those like him to be a cancer in our society.

Dr. A. is correct. Most Americans including our military do not support this war or the propaganda that goes along with it. The rhetoric works only on the stupid, the fearful, redneck jingoists and 14 year olds.

http://www.maaf.info/

The Population Reference Bureau, an independent, private data analysis agency, shows military atheists comprise more than 20% of the population. In addition, atheism is more common in the military than in the civilian population.:

I, and many Americans, are embarrassed that RA and similar sorts would even pretend to speak for anyone else, much less the majority. I believe his brain washers should be shunned just as the Jesus Camp propagators were. At least RA exposes the ugly underside and repulsive spread of these neocon dominionist fascists.

This is child abuse. This is as grotesque as military madras Muslim training camps or camps designed to get North Korean youth to hate Americans. What chance is there that RA will grow up to be a thoughtful considerate person who adds to the world? Or is it more likely we'll have another Pat Robertson/ Fred Phelps/ Bush clone spawning more of this crap while pretending to have moral superiority and speaking for invisible men in the sky? What would you do if RA was your kid? Your student? He seems like such a disturbed and brainwashed kid to me. I know that 14 year olds are not known for their wisdom or maturity... And he's really lucky he stumbled over to the JREF site-- but, I find his rantings very very disturbing.

[Pardalis]

Real American and Oliver in the same thread...


Eh, misère... :boxedin:

[articulett]

RA, what lead you to all the sites you cut and paste from. Regarding your other forums (the one with the "swift boat kids for truth" and the Charlie Daniel's rant against Darwin for example...) I can hear the phrases the adults in your life use like "for pity sake" and "grow up" in your words... but how did you land at the websites you find so worthy of cutting and pasting from? And what made you decide to cut and paste this propaganda at JREF. Did someone make you think this was a good idea or that you would be teaching people something useful? Do you feel like you are doing good in someway by spreading this stuff? What is your goal? What makes you think you understand the issue via sound bites and propaganda while having no actual experience in the world or as an adult? Have you ever spent time actually helping people and teaching people useful truths... or do you spend all your time getting indoctrinated and then flinging the propaganda at others with the notion that you are giving out bits of wisdom and platitudes? The stuff that you find profound, funny, insightful, and deep-- seems horrifically childish, immature, jingoistic, banal, chauvinistic, and illogical to the majority of educated adults in this world. Who has made you into their mouthpiece, and don't you think you might want to question their motives rather than the people they are scaring you about?

What are you going to feel like when you realize how they have been manipulating you? You are not speaking up for soldiers or anyone else except for those who want to maintain the power stolen by the religious right.
I5cXWElb-GE

[articulett]

I wonder if Oliver is actually RuPaul.

(tee-hee)

[stanleywinthrop]

As much as it cannot be told what went through his mind, I always dislike the 'gave his life for his country' part.

It seems to me he gave his life for survival of other human life, not the flag. Isn't that a far greater honour?


You see, for some, it can be one in the same.

[JoeEllison]

This is not about Bush.This is about the troops. And yes I don't have a military background. However my uncle was in iraq for some time and also was givin the MacArthur Leadership Award. I have about of total of 8 vets in my famiy. I have know right to complain, but luckly I don't see anything to complain about. So I support what the troops are doing.

So, you don't actually support the troops. You support Bush's plan for the military, and the hell with the people who have to execute that stupid little plan. It all starts to become clearer.

[Dr Adequate]

As much as it cannot be told what went through his mind, I always dislike the 'gave his life for his country' part.

It seems to me he gave his life for survival of other human life ... Only if he would have done the same thing to protect enemy combatants.

[gumboot]

As much as it cannot be told what went through his mind, I always dislike the 'gave his life for his country' part.

It seems to me he gave his life for survival of other human life, not the flag. Isn't that a far greater honour?


Why would you equate "country" with "flag"?

When I think of serving for my country, that means my nation and my society - our values, our way of life, and most importantly our people.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Last time you said: "Last time I checked the US is a Republic
and not a Democracy". :rolleyes:


Care to quote me? Last time someone raised that argument I pointed out that the US is both a democracy and a Republic, just as New Zealand is both a Democracy and a Constitutional Monarchy.

-Gumboot

[OneShotKi11]

Would Ron Paul pay for the psychological care and homeless shelters needed by these people?

I could have sworn he mentioned this in the last debate and said he would spend money for there psychological care and health problems!

[gumboot]

It's about Muslims ... Thanks, that was all I wanted to know about you.


What's about Muslims? What the fig are you talking about Oliver? Your posts make no sense whatsoever and are virtually impossible to follow.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

I hate to say it but it's not that far away. Which is indeed a strong contrast to democracy.

I'm sorry did you just say a Constitutional Republic was not far from a Military Dictatorship? :faint:

I give up.

-Gumboot

[OneShotKi11]

Having this german lecture me on what is constitutional is like having a preacher lecture me on how to behave in a whorehouse.

YOu guys take more shot at oliver then actually saying anything intelligent!
Its annoying to read what you people have to say anymore!

Just because your from America doesnt mean your born with the ultimate knowledge of the constitution! It is a document that anyone can read and learn as well as express in debate even if they are not from America!

Im even willing to be that Oliver probably does know it better then you given your lame as post!

[OneShotKi11]

Who said anything about "protecting" troops? Their job is to be placed in harms way. Their duty is to be endangered. So that civilians are not.

Just because Germany and New Zealand are only willing to use their soldiers as dishwashers for the UN doesn't mean every country has forgotten the expensive lesson that the League of Nations taught us.

-Gumboot

Their duty is to be endangered when we the civilians are in danger! They should not be in danger if we are not! As a civilian i dont believe i am in any danger from another country as of now, and feel my troops shouldnt be as well!

[gumboot]

Their duty is to be endangered when we the civilians are in danger!


Their duty is to be endangered when the democratically elected leaders decide endangering them is necessary for the benefit of US interests.

The problem here is the USA currently has democratically elected leaders that don't rank the country's interests in agreement with the majority of the population.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Im even willing to be that Oliver probably does know it better then you given your lame as post!


Oliver has demonstrated a singularly profound lack of understanding of all things American.

-Gumboot

[Skeptic Ginger]

KmsOIjzQ1V8

You just need to put the code (KmsOIjzQ1V8) between the yt tags.Thanks. Where do you find the code?

[gumboot]

Thanks. Where do you find the code?


The youtube video will have a url like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmsOIjzQ1V8

The bit after "v=" is the video code. :)

-Gumboot

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is not about Bush.This is about the troops. And yes I don't have a military background. However my uncle was in iraq for some time and also was givin the MacArthur Leadership Award. I have about of total of 8 vets in my famiy. I have know right to complain, but luckly I don't see anything to complain about. So I support what the troops are doing.Well my family is full of vets too. My Dad and uncles ALL served in WWII or shortly after. My one brother served in Vietnam and my other was in the Air Force just after we left Vietnam.

I did my part. I actively participated in Vietnam war protests, took up the "US Out of El Salvador" cause after that, and came out of 'protest retirement' to get us out of this Iraq War mess. If the vote in this country is not sufficient to see to it the elected leaders follow the will of the people (you know that part of the Constitution, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.") then it is up to the citizens to speak out against the government. If not then we are responsible for the government (and the useless wars) we get.

Just think how far a trillion dollars would have gone toward energy independence and we'd have 4,000 more live troops than we have now.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The youtube video will have a url like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmsOIjzQ1V8

The bit after "v=" is the video code. :)

-GumbootOh I see. Thanks.

[Jeff Corey]

Like you said, skeptigirl.

[articulett]

like you said, skepticgirl.

Ditto.

[Normal Dude]

Right or wrong those troops are doing a job. A soldier does what a soldier does. So all you whiners, young or old, If you never served in the military you don't have the right to complain about anything.

OK, first off a re-intrduction, since you apparently didn't read the last two pages, this is coming from "one of the troops". People have EVERY RIGHT to complain, regardless of their military experience.

You cannot justify whatever you want by waving an American flag and yelling "Support our troops (By supporting our decisions)". It's BS and emotional/political blackmail. This type of garbage is exactly why I changed my party affiliation from Republican to Independant.

[Normal Dude]

Their duty is to be endangered when we the civilians are in danger! They should not be in danger if we are not! As a civilian i dont believe i am in any danger from another country as of now, and feel my troops shouldnt be as well!

Actually our job is put ourselves in danger BEFORE the civilians get in danger. The problem arises when an administration has screwed up ideas of where this danger is.

ETA: Oh, and what Gumboot said too.

[Normal Dude]

This is not about Bush.This is about the troops. And yes I don't have a military background. However my uncle was in iraq for some time and also was givin the MacArthur Leadership Award. I have about of total of 8 vets in my famiy. I have know right to complain, but luckly I don't see anything to complain about. So I support what the troops are doing.

So if we were to pack up two infantry divisions and hurl them against China, would you still be yelling "Support the Troops!" in an effort to support the plan? Since, after all, you have no right to complain about the military being used in a pointless endeavor. :rolleyes:

[Lonewulf]

Tell ya what, Real American.

Wait until you grow up, four years old (or two years later and lie about your age). Then, join the Army.

Go, and get in a few battles. Hopefully, don't die*.

Then, come back here. I'll listen to everything you have to say. Until then, though, I'm not interested.

But you don't like being talked to like a kid... but I had to say the above. However, since you asked, I'll talk to you like an adult at this point.

My grandfather was in two wars, Korea and World War II. He got shot in the service of this country. We still have the bullet (somewhere). He joined at the age of 16. Yes, he lied about his age. He grew to become an officer very quickly; he went through the ranks like nothing.

He fought as an officer in an armored division, and before that was infantry. He fought in World War II... and you know what? That was a fight worth fighting. That was a fight worth fighting for, worth getting trenchfoot for, worth braving shrapnel and bullet, plane and bomb for, worth bleeding for, worth dying for. Because that was a battle with the fate not just for the U.S., but also the fate of the world. That was a battle that we had no other choice than to fight.

You think Iraq is the same? You think Iraq is worth the same cost, the same pain, the same blood? Is that blood such a cheap currency for you?

You want to play the goddamned patriot card? Screw that. You haven't even served, just as much as I haven't. And I am a citizen of the United States of America. I exercise my rights, the same rights that my grandfather fought and almost died for. And one of those rights is the freedom of speech.

I have every much as right to an opinion as you do. And I have every much as right to question the use of our army, and our soldiers. You are willing to risk the lives of young men for no other desire than patriotism -- without even desiring to know if it's worth it or not.

I hope for your sake that you learn someday how foolish what you say really is.


*Really. Don't die. I don't wish harm on you here, I just want to make a point. ;)

[Tailgater]

YOu guys take more shot at oliver then actually saying anything intelligent!
Its annoying to read what you people have to say anymore!

Just because your from America doesnt mean your born with the ultimate knowledge of the constitution! It is a document that anyone can read and learn as well as express in debate even if they are not from America!

Im even willing to be that Oliver probably does know it better then you given your lame as post!

I feel like a laughing dog....no.....banging head on the computer?.....no....maybe this one....

:v:

[Tailgater]

Tell ya what, Real American.

<snip>

*Really. Don't die. I don't wish harm on you here, I just want to make a point. ;)

......and a :bigclap for you.

I think we should talk to him as an adult and not blabber about how old he is like some of the other posters. Anyone in this forum can make a ridiculous argument for any number of reasons. Making a good point instead of "OMG your 14, look everyone, he's 14" will do much for the lad.

[Normal Dude]

Tell ya what, Real American.
snip...


Nominated. You said it much better than I could have.

[Lonewulf]

Nominated. You said it much better than I could have.

Hm, first time I've been nominated, I think.

I think I shall go celebrate!

[Ladewig]

Just think how far a trillion dollars would have gone toward energy independence and we'd have 4,000 more live troops than we have now.

or think about how far we could have gone if, for the past four years, the full force of the U.S. military were directed at finding Bin Laden, who is still at large. RealAmerican, wouldn't be awesome to bring Bin Laden to justice?

[Darth Rotor]

If you never served in the military you don't have the right to complain about anything. If you don't like this country I'm sure Bin Laden has a home for you.
How much time did you spend serving under the colors, boy?

There are a number of folks who play the posting and arguing game here, some a bit more right, some a bit more left, some up the middle, some just heavy on the Guinness, who spent from four to thiry years doing just that.

Talk to me. What's your MOS?

ETA: oops, missed a few, looks like most of this was already covered.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Tell ya what, Real American.

Wait until you grow up, four years old (or two years later and lie about your age). Then, join the Army.

Go, and get in a few battles. Hopefully, don't die*.

Then, come back here. I'll listen to everything you have to say. Until then, though, I'm not interested.

But you don't like being talked to like a kid... but I had to say the above. However, since you asked, I'll talk to you like an adult at this point.

My grandfather was in two wars, Korea and World War II. He got shot in the service of this country. We still have the bullet (somewhere). He joined at the age of 16. Yes, he lied about his age. He grew to become an officer very quickly; he went through the ranks like nothing.

He fought as an officer in an armored division, and before that was infantry. He fought in World War II... and you know what? That was a fight worth fighting. That was a fight worth fighting for, worth getting trenchfoot for, worth braving shrapnel and bullet, plane and bomb for, worth bleeding for, worth dying for. Because that was a battle with the fate not just for the U.S., but also the fate of the world. That was a battle that we had no other choice than to fight.

You think Iraq is the same? You think Iraq is worth the same cost, the same pain, the same blood? Is that blood such a cheap currency for you?

You want to play the goddamned patriot card? Screw that. You haven't even served, just as much as I haven't. And I am a citizen of the United States of America. I exercise my rights, the same rights that my grandfather fought and almost died for. And one of those rights is the freedom of speech.

I have every much as right to an opinion as you do. And I have every much as right to question the use of our army, and our soldiers. You are willing to risk the lives of young men for no other desire than patriotism -- without even desiring to know if it's worth it or not.

I hope for your sake that you learn someday how foolish what you say really is.


*Really. Don't die. I don't wish harm on you here, I just want to make a point. ;)
As a vet, and a (now retired) career Naval Officer, I agree with what you posted, Brother Lonewulf. :)

Well said, my fellow American.

My only caution is that the fate of the free world need not be at stake to deploy American troops, which is sorta what WW II seemed to be about, at the time. There are some lesser scraps that call for our blood and treasure to be risked. The Powell Docrtrine, and its father, the Weinberger Doctrine, are good decision templates for weighing the risks versus national security benefits.

DR

[OneShotKi11]

Their duty is to be endangered when the democratically elected leaders decide endangering them is necessary for the benefit of US interests.

The problem here is the USA currently has democratically elected leaders that don't rank the country's interests in agreement with the majority of the population.

-Gumboot

I understand your using sarcasm (I Hope!!!) but it should say "They can be endangered" and not "Their duty is to be endangered":D
Because clearly that is not there duty or purpose.

The Us would benefit from conquering all the OIL in the middle east, but does that mean our soldiers should be out there trying to control the middle east?

So you are wrong my friend, we are not supposed to send our troops out all over the world unless we ourselves can see a danger to our country on the horizon.

[OneShotKi11]

Actually our job is put ourselves in danger BEFORE the civilians get in danger. The problem arises when an administration has screwed up ideas of where this danger is.

ETA: Oh, and what Gumboot said too.

YOu (United States Army) dont put yourself into danger if there is no possible foreseen threat to the civilians.

[Darth Rotor]

I understand your using sarcasm but it should say "They can be endangered" and not "Their duty is to be endangered":D

Because clearly that is not there duty or purpose.
FWIW: Their, not there.

That endangerment is inherent in the profession of arms. When going into operations along the entire spectrum of military operations, from a NEO to a Big War, there is always the risk of being killed or injured due explicitly to those actions.

The eight dead at Desert One are an example of such a risk paid off.

It is in the risk assessment, and in weighing the costs to be paid versus benefits accrued that considerable disagreement will always arise.

What won't change is that military service is bloody dangerous.

Over twenty people I know personally died in aircraft accidents, military category. Only one died in a combat mission. (So far.)

DR

[OneShotKi11]

FWIW: Their, not there.

That endangerment is inherent in the profession of arms. When going into operations along the entire spectrum of military operations, from a NEO to a Big War, there is always the risk of being killed or injured due explicitly to those actions.

The eight dead at Desert One are an example of such a risk paid off.

It is in the risk assessment, and in weighing the costs to be paid versus benefits accrued that considerable disagreement will always arise.

What won't change is that military service is bloody dangerous.

Over twenty people I know personally died in aircraft accidents, military category. Only one died in a combat mission. (So far.)

DR

Why are we being naive?
Must i state that when i say "in danger" i mean in combat and at war and not talking about aircraft accidents?

I am in danger of waking up everyday falling over and breaking my leg which in turn would just be an accident, but no one would consider that something to be in danger of. So for you to say inherent danger because of flight accidents is irrelevant to the conversation.

YOu already know that when i say danger i mean at war and in combat so to beat around the bush with the army's inherent danger when you sign up is just plain ignorant!

So i will restate for those who want to beat around the "Bush"..lolz..
Our armies duty is not to be waring or in combat with nations that are not a threat to the Untied States of America! They are not to be sent to war unless a foreseen threat to our national security is on the horizon!

FWIW: I was quoting him and in doing so had to copy his incorrect use of the word "Their".
I am also one who makes this mistake commonly, but in this instance was not! Thank You!

[Darth Rotor]

Why are we being naive?
Who is this we, kemo sabe?
Must i state that when i say "in danger" i mean in combat and at war and not talking about aircraft accidents?
You might want to try posting in other than idiot speak.
I am in danger of waking up everyday falling over and breaking my leg which in turn would just be an accident, but no one would consider that something to be in danger of. So for you to say inherent danger because of flight accidents is irrelevant to the conversation.
No, it is not. Any number of armed operations have been undertaken with a very low casualty count, see Bosnia. We lost more to accidents than combat.
YOu already know that when i say danger i mean at war and in combat so to beat around the bush with the army's inherent danger when you sign up is just plain ignorant!
I don't read minds. In your case, there is nothing to read, apparently.
So i will restate for those who want to beat around the "Bush"..lolz..
Our armies duty is not to be waring or in combat with nations that are not a threat to the Untied States of America! They are not to be sent to war unless a foreseen threat to our national security is on the horizon!
Right, you are incoherent. Welcome to my idiot list.

DR

[Normal Dude]

Edited: NM. This one really isn't worth the trouble.

[OneShotKi11]

Who is this we, kemo sabe?

You might want to try posting in other than idiot speak.

No, it is not. Any number of armed operations have been undertaken with a very low casualty count, see Bosnia. We lost more to accidents than combat.

I don't read minds. In your case, there is nothing to read, apparently.

Right, you are incoherent. Welcome to my idiot list.

DR

Your last post really had no point!

You seem to have just jumped into a conversation a little late without any knowledge as to what was being discussed. Also with very little intelligence to add might i say!

It is not my fault you couldnt interpret "danger" as combat situations, and not as "air craft accidents". Is that my stupidity at hand or yours? Maybe if you read a few comments back you would understand and could have jumped into the conversation more informed!

What part of my text are you considering "idiot speak"?
Im sorry if i used simple language and you still were not able to comprehend its meaning!

Let me inform you that we are not talking about the danger of being in the armed forces. You pretended to enter the conversation and act like you knew what you were talking about yet you keep throwing the fact that "Any number of armed operations have been undertaken with a very low casualty count" As if it meant anything in regards to what i have been saying.

What was the point in mentioning the casualty counts of armed operations when i am discussing the Duty of the military in the United States, and it relevance to the protection of its civilians?

YOu try to insult me but it only makes you look foolish!
Stating that you dont read minds shows you entered a conversation stupidly and without knowledge of the discussion.

Again because you seem incapable of understanding me and my "idiot speak" i will reiterate...
I am not discussing the endangerments of being in the armed forces, for we all know that it is a dangerous profession.
I was talking with a few people in the topic about what was the duty of the army in terms of protecting the United States and its reasons for being in conflicts with other nations!

You my friend, were the one who Quoted me and then spoke off topic as if it had anything to do with what i originally said. Then were the one who started slinging insults, and are now the one who looks moronic!

[Hokulele]

You my friend, were the one who Quoted me and then spoke off topic as if it had anything to do with what i originally said. Then were the one who started slinging insults, and are now the one who looks moronic!


Umm, no.

[real american]

......and a :bigclap for you.

I think we should talk to him as an adult and not blabber about how old he is like some of the other posters. Anyone in this forum can make a ridiculous argument for any number of reasons. Making a good point instead of "OMG your 14, look everyone, he's 14" will do much for the lad.

THANK YOU!!! All I wanted. That women articullett or whatever her name is always steps into a topic I start and say "He's only 14." I'm sick of it. Yes I'm 14, BFD! But realy thank you for saying that.

[Lonewulf]

THANK YOU!!! All I wanted. That women articullett or whatever her name is always steps into a topic I start and say "He's only 14." I'm sick of it. Yes I'm 14, BFD! But realy thank you for saying that.

Real American, are you willing to respond to the post he was replying to?

[Normal Dude]

THANK YOU!!! All I wanted. That women articullett or whatever her name is always steps into a topic I start and say "He's only 14." I'm sick of it. Yes I'm 14, BFD! But realy thank you for saying that.

So are you going to address any of the responses that you have recieved?

ETA: Dagnabit Wolf beat me to it.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

On the Daily Show, they said New Zealand had one person in Iraq. Politics must be fun. "Support the Troop!" "Begin Phased Withdrawal!"

But I think it would be rather supportive to stop sending troops to die in a country that has made no political progress and that we really shouldn't be forcing our views of government on and ignoring their health when they come home.

[Lonewulf]

ETA: Dagnabit Wolf beat me to it.

Aroo, baby. ;)

[Normal Dude]

Aroo, baby. ;)

I actually went to look up the definition of "Aroo" until it dawned on me. :D

[articulett]

Aroo, baby. ;)

I think it's funny... because you specifically mentioned his age in the post and gave him a nice little wink at the end to let him know that you really didn't expect him to die in a war, but he ought to consider such before advocating the death of others... I think you were nicer to him because of his age than you would have been to a grown up blowhard. I think his age is important given the other thread about the 13 year old girl who killed herself over an internet hoax. Who talks to 14 year olds the way the would adults-- and why? Does RA talk to 10 year olds like he does to his peers?

I think your post was great too, btw. But I don't understand how it exemplifies "treating him as an adult" as tailgater alluded. But then, again, I don't understand much of what tailgater is saying. I guess it takes a 14 year old kid to understand. Nor do I see the validity of the comparison he was making nor his mischaracterization of my posts. But maybe he's a young lad himself. They seem to agree about something-- but hell if I know what it is.

[OneShotKi11]

[QUOTE=OneShotKi11
"Their duty is to be endangered when we the civilians are in danger!"



[QUOTE=Noraml Dude
"Actually our job is put ourselves in danger BEFORE the civilians get in danger."





[QUOTE=OneShotKi11 in response to Normal Dude
"YOu (United States Army) dont put yourself into danger if there is no possible foreseen threat to the civilians."


[QUOTE=Darth Rotor in response to OneShotKi11
"That endangerment is inherent in the profession of arms. When going into operations along the entire spectrum of military operations, from a NEO to a Big War, there is always the risk of being killed or injured due explicitly to those actions."[/QUOTE]

What was darths point?
To explain to me that being in the military is dangerous?
I already know being in the military or armed forces can be dangerous, but clearly that’s not what im discussing. I am discussing when should the military be endangered and for what reasons.
SO Darth made no point relevant to what I was discussing!

There duty is not to be in danger! They may acknowledge the fact when they sign up that there duty may call upon them to be in danger at sometime, but they do not sign up to the military with the sole purpose of being in danger.

There duty may call for them to be in danger but there duty isnt to be in danger!
Their's a difference.

[Lonewulf]

I think it's funny... because you specifically mentioned his age in the post and gave him a nice little wink at the end to let him know that you really didn't expect him to die in a war, but he ought to consider such before advocating the death of others... I think you were nicer to him because of his age than you would have been to a grown up blowhard.
Actually, no, I wouldn't have. I would have made that exact same post, although with the first paragraph taken out, if dealing with an adult. I would have also left in the last line, because I've already been warned about threatening the life of another person (which was an honest misunderstanding as to what I meant), and I wanted that disclaimer to cover my ass. I don't want to be banned from this forum. :D

I think his age is important given the other thread about the 13 year old girl who killed herself over an internet hoax. Who talks to 14 year olds the way the would adults-- and why? Does RA talk to 10 year olds like he does to his peers?
I really don't care to talk at length about this. I'm not judging how you talk to him, and I honestly don't care how you talk to him. I'm also not insulting him or attacking in the same way that the 13 year old girl who killed herself was. You'll be hard pressed to ever see me say, to adult or child, that the "world would be better without them."

I think your post was great too, btw.
Thanks! :)

But I don't understand how it exemplifies "treating him as an adult" as tailgater alluded.
Because I would have made that exact same post, with only some minor alterations, if I was dealing with an adult.

[gumboot]

I understand your using sarcasm (I Hope!!!) but it should say "They can be endangered" and not "Their duty is to be endangered":D
Because clearly that is not there duty or purpose.

I wasn't being sarcastic.


The Us would benefit from conquering all the OIL in the middle east, but does that mean our soldiers should be out there trying to control the middle east?

That's not what I said. I said their duty is to be endangered when endangering them is necessary to protect US interests. Currently nations that have oil are willing to sell it to the USA at a reasonable price (the largest exporter of oil to the USA is Canada), therefore it is not necessary to endanger military personnel to secure it.

However, were a situation to arise whereby it was necessary for the military to be deployed to ensure US access to oil, yes it would be the duty of the US government to authorise that action. (This is assuming a situation in which it is necessary for the USA to have oil, which is of course another issue entirely).


So you are wrong my friend

I'm not your friend.

-Gumboot

[Tailgater]

I think it's funny... because you specifically mentioned his age in the post and gave him a nice little wink at the end to let him know that you really didn't expect him to die in a war, but he ought to consider such before advocating the death of others... I think you were nicer to him because of his age than you would have been to a grown up blowhard. I think his age is important given the other thread about the 13 year old girl who killed herself over an internet hoax. Who talks to 14 year olds the way the would adults-- and why? Does RA talk to 10 year olds like he does to his peers?

I think your post was great too, btw. But I don't understand how it exemplifies "treating him as an adult" as tailgater alluded. But then, again, I don't understand much of what tailgater is saying. I guess it takes a 14 year old kid to understand. Nor do I see the validity of the comparison he was making nor his mischaracterization of my posts. But maybe he's a young lad himself. They seem to agree about something-- but hell if I know what it is.

We don't know who is 14 years old here. We don't know who is 30 years old with mental health issues. We don't know who is a man or woman. That said, attacking the arguer means nothing. Some people are on here just to get kicks pissing off the masses. I read alot of what Lonewulf posts and he is usually respectful no matter how idiotic things get. Your repetitive posts about RAs age and sympathy (?) for his indoctrination in evil does nothing to change his mind, but rather fuels his dislike for the "opposite" side as you like to say.

No offense intended, but I read that you taught 14 year olds. I imagine you hear what alot of the kids are talking about in politics/social issues. If you hear a student saying things you disagree with, do you engage the student in a discussion of facts or do you stand up and tell the rest of the class that he is young and that you feel sorry for him for being so ignorant?

[Darth Rotor]

Is that my stupidity at hand or yours?

Yours.

Next question?

DR

[Darth Rotor]

There duty is not to be in danger! They may acknowledge the fact when they sign up that there duty may call upon them to be in danger at sometime, but they do not sign up to the military with the sole purpose of being in danger.

No one has said that "the sole purpose" is to be "in danger" (other than you). The hard fact of the matter is that doing damned dangerous things, and being in danger, is part and parcel of the job description of being in the armed forces. Anyone who tells you other wise is at best being evasive, and at worst simply lying to you.

That profession is about applying lethal force, or its threat, for one reason or another as decided by civilian leadership. That includes both very dangerous training, and dangerous operations where people might shoot at you. That is part of your job, to do those things and go those places.

It is inherently dangerous. The larger risk is that the civilian leadership make crap decisions in risking our blood and treasure, as I noted some posts back. That's a risk of being in the service. One of the poor risk decisions, on a smaller scale, made at the national level was to cut the force to 1/3 its original size, not grant armored vehicles asked for by the commander in the ground, and a few other Washington level political decisions, in the Somalia operations in 1993. Do more with less. That was a political risk decision. It did not turn out to well, on a lot of levels, though some of the errors that led to that nasty day in Mogadishu were at the local, in the field, level.

Do you recall the emotion, and venom, this great pissing and moaning, this uproar, over that firefight? It led commentators on both sides of the pond to wonder if America had any stomach for a fight. The "no danger, no casualties" idiocy as policy era had begun. Your posts begin to sound as though you subscribe to that brand of foolishness, but due to your style and poor prose, it is unclear whether you do or not.

You don't agree with the war in Iraq?

Fine.

Many agree that it was a poor decision, undertaken in a less than proper manner.

So, now that you have whined about it, what are you going to do about it?

I know what I am going to do, and am doing.

DR

[Normal Dude]

Your posts begin to sound as though you subscribe to that brand of foolishness, but due to your style and poor prose, it is unclear whether you do or not.


I think this is key. I have avoided addressing him because I don't understand what the hell he is saying, and to be quite honest I don't think it's worth the time interpreting it.

[Darth Rotor]

I think this is key. I have avoided addressing him because I don't understand what the hell he is saying, and to be quite honest I don't think it's worth the time interpreting it.
Something tells me you used your time more wisely than I did. ;)

DR

[Whiplash]

Oh noes! Our troops is in trouble if da Dims make dem come home!!!!111!!

eta: We really need a kids section on this forum.


As a 39 year old who has seen quite alot, it's been my experience that people who are quick to start labeling opposition as "kids" are usually 20 something's who think they know everything, and assume that anyone who disagrees must be someone younger and less experienced and knowledgable as themselves. Convinced of their superiority and having all the answers.

The vast majority of the time I see someone trot out the "kid" card, the person they are insulting comes off to me as far more mature and intelligent, and the person calling them a kid often comes off as very imature and full of themselves.

The above post is a prime example of that.

RA is a 14 year old kid cutting and pasting propaganda. He is not representative of any Americans that I know. I consider the adults dumping this crap into the brains of those like him to be a cancer in our society.

Dr. A. is correct. Most Americans including our military do not support this war or the propaganda that goes along with it. The rhetoric works only on the stupid, the fearful, redneck jingoists and 14 year olds.

More of the same.. argument ad hominem....

Just like the way liberals are always convinced that conservatives only win via fraud of some kind. They are so convinced that they are superior and that it's just impossible that anyone conservative could have won legitimately. A majority of people couldn't possibly have supported them. No way. It must have been some kind of fraud.

[Lonewulf]

As a 39 year old who has seen quite alot, it's been my experience that people who are quick to start labeling opposition as "kids" are usually 20 something's who think they know everything, and assume...

Perhaps you should actually read the thread (either this thread, or another one, I think the Charlie Daniels thread...), wherein Real American actually reveals his age. He is 14 years old, he has said such himself. There is no assumption, except the assumption that Real American is telling the truth.

I'm 21, and it's been my experience that anyone who thinks that they are 39 think that they know everything... and don't even research the issue they think they know about. ;)

Perhaps you should read Henry David Thoreau, where he debunks the whole "Older = Wiser and Smarter" mythos.

[godless dave]

The Dims are at it again, they give President Bush an Ultamatium to begin Troop pullout or they will not allow another Troop Support Bill on the Floor for a vote. This is outragous , especially when it seems that the Surge is working and we are gaining ground over the insurgents there.

Who cares if we are gaining ground against the insurgents? We still have no business being there and US soldiers are still dying for nothing.

The best way to support the troops is to demand an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and a refocusing of the Afghan mission from nation-building to capturing or killing bin Laden.

[Tailgater]

Perhaps you should actually read the thread (either this thread, or another one, I think the Charlie Daniels thread...), wherein Real American actually reveals his age. He is 14 years old, he has said such himself. There is no assumption, except the assumption that Real American is telling the truth.

I'm 21, and it's been my experience that anyone who thinks that they are 39 think that they know everything... and don't even research the issue they think they know about. ;)

Perhaps you should read Henry David Thoreau, where he debunks the whole "Older = Wiser and Smarter" mythos.

The way I read the post, articulett or quixotecoyote was the poster he thinks is 20 something.

[Lonewulf]

The way I read the post, articulett or quixotecoyote was the poster he thinks is 20 something.

And...? I don't think that changes my post at all.

BTW, I'm 22. I messed up on my age, lol.

[Tailgater]

And...? I don't think that changes my post at all.

BTW, I'm 22. I messed up on my age, lol.

I see. You are waaaay to young to be messing up your age.:)

[Normal Dude]

I see that Real American has no intention of defending his statements.

[real american]

I see that Real American has no intention of defending his statements.

I'm back, took a break. Been Busy.

[real american]

We don't know who is 14 years old here. We don't know who is 30 years old with mental health issues. We don't know who is a man or woman. That said, attacking the arguer means nothing. Some people are on here just to get kicks pissing off the masses. I read alot of what Lonewulf posts and he is usually respectful no matter how idiotic things get. Your repetitive posts about RAs age and sympathy (?) for his indoctrination in evil does nothing to change his mind, but rather fuels his dislike for the "opposite" side as you like to say.

No offense intended, but I read that you taught 14 year olds. I imagine you hear what alot of the kids are talking about in politics/social issues. If you hear a student saying things you disagree with, do you engage the student in a discussion of facts or do you stand up and tell the rest of the class that he is young and that you feel sorry for him for being so ignorant?

You are now my favorite poster here. Age should not matter in this topic. She just wishes to have other pity me for my age as she does.

[Darth Rotor]

You are now my favorite poster here. Age should not matter in this topic. She just wishes to have other pity me for my age as she does.
OK, age doesn't matter. That still leaves your OP in a pathetic state, and your assertions somewhat lacking.

Happy now? :cool:

DR

[Normal Dude]

You are now my favorite poster here. Age should not matter in this topic. She just wishes to have other pity me for my age as she does.

I'd like to hear what you think of the responses that have nothing to do with your age.

[real american]

ND, state your question so I do not have to go all the way back and find it.

[Normal Dude]

OK, first off a re-intrduction, since you apparently didn't read the last two pages, this is coming from "one of the troops". People have EVERY RIGHT to complain, regardless of their military experience.

You cannot justify whatever you want by waving an American flag and yelling "Support our troops (By supporting our decisions)". It's BS and emotional/political blackmail. This type of garbage is exactly why I changed my party affiliation from Republican to Independant.


My contribution was rather small. Others wrote much more intelligent and comprehensive posts, including LoneWulf and Darth Rotor. You opened the thread, you at least owe reading and responding to what they took the time to write.

[real american]

My contribution was rather small. Others wrote much more intelligent and comprehensive posts, including LoneWulf and Darth Rotor. You opened the thread, you at least owe reading and responding to what they took the time to write.

I can't answer a question that is not there. You have not asked me a question just quoted a statement.

[Normal Dude]

Forget it. I call troll.

[Lonewulf]

I have a question.

Why would a pro-American boy that's practically in love with the Republican party and why they were sent to war...

...Have the New World Order sign in his avatar? I'm suddenly VERY suspicious.

Real American, if you're going to ignore my whole post because you can't respond to it (which is okay, I don't mind cowardice myself), perhaps you can still answer this question:

For what reasons, if any, is the blood of our soldiers worth the fight in Iraq? Please explain how the supposed benefits of our fight outweigh the costs.

Make a flow chart if it'll be easier for you.

Though I'm starting to wonder if it'll look like the flow chart at the end of this comic... http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=071201

[Ladewig]

ND, state your question so I do not have to go all the way back and find it.

So you won't read the posts in the thread that you started. Would you give an explanation as to why you are not willing to do that?

[Tailgater]

You are now my favorite poster here. Age should not matter in this topic. She just wishes to have other pity me for my age as she does.

Well, thank you, but then there is still this.....

OK, age doesn't matter. That still leaves your OP in a pathetic state, and your assertions somewhat lacking.

Happy now?

RA, age aside, your OP attacks everything this country was founded on.

ETA:Maybe that statement is a little overboard. I honestly don't think most politicians want us to lose or see troops die. I don't think Republicans don't care if the troops die for what is trying to be done in Iraq, and I don't thinks Democrats want troops to die so we can give up and come home. The troops are stuck between ideas (one of the big problems with a non-defensive war in a democracy). I'm glad to see progress at the moment, and would like to see if it continues or not, but unless more is done politically, the troops will have to hold indefinitely and the surge is going to be over either way. Withdrawal has already been planned for that. When the surge is over and no progress is being made, will you still hold your views to stay the course? Everyone has a breaking point. What is yours?

[Upchurch]

I have a question.

Why would a pro-American boy that's practically in love with the Republican party and why they were sent to war...

...Have the New World Order sign in his avatar? I'm suddenly VERY suspicious.
That's a pro wrestling thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(professional_wrestling)), not a political movement.

I will now go stand in the corner in shame for knowing that.

[Lonewulf]

That's a pro wrestling thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(professional_wrestling)), not a political movement.

I will now go stand in the corner in shame for knowing that.

Ah, well. Okay. No problem, then.

Well, except that wrestling is nothing more than soft-core gay porn, and he should feel ashamed... but not because he's a conspiracy theorist. :D

[Darth Rotor]

ND, state your question so I do not have to go all the way back and find it.
Lazy, eh?

Strike one.
I can't answer a question that is not there. You have not asked me a question just quoted a statement
Dim, which means, I suppose that you are one of the Dims you are so upset about.

Strike two.

Watch carefully where I and others ask you some questions. From me, in post # 18 of this thread.
You want to keep paying the bill, kid?
Dr Adequate asked a question:
According to Stars and Stripes, in February 2006, 72% of troops in Iraq wanted withdrawal within the year. And I supported the troops. Did you?
Your reply to him was that this war would go on, even if the dims didn't want it to. That was not an answer to his question.

Lonewulf in post #118 asks you:
You're right, the soldiers are doing a job. They're also dying, and expending valuable resources -- both economic and military. If you have arrived at the conclusion that this expenditure of resources is outweighed by the benefit, can you please show your work?

What, exactly, are we gaining in Iraq?
articulette asked you a series of related questions in post # 135. (Perhaps she meant them rhetorically, I am not sure.)
Did someone make you think this was a good idea or that you would be teaching people something useful?

Do you feel like you are doing good in someway by spreading this stuff?

What is your goal?

What makes you think you understand the issue via sound bites and propaganda while having no actual experience in the world or as an adult?

Have you ever spent time actually helping people and teaching people useful truths... or do you spend all your time getting indoctrinated and then flinging the propaganda at others with the notion that you are giving out bits of wisdom and platitudes?
Normal Dude asks in post # 157
So if we were to pack up two infantry divisions and hurl them against China, would you still be yelling "Support the Troops!" in an effort to support the plan?
In post #158 Lonewulf asks you:
You think Iraq is the same? You think Iraq is worth the same cost, the same pain, the same blood? Is that blood such a cheap currency for you?

You want to play the goddamned patriot card?
Lonewulf in post # 175 asks:
Real American, are you willing to respond to the post he was replying to?
In post #198 I ask you a question:
OK, age doesn't matter. That still leaves your OP in a pathetic state, and your assertions somewhat lacking.

Happy now?
So, real american, I suggest you answer up, or be held a lazy, clueless, nutless wonder. Your answers don't have to be any sort of "right" or "wrong," but they have to be your own, from your brain. Or, you run away, and it's

Strike three, you are outta here.

This forum is a tough room to work. It operates under the premise that critical thinking is a good idea, and that the exercise of one's own train of rational thought is best done before posting. Sharper blades than you have gotten rough handling here.

You want to play with the adults? Good, play on and play hard!

Caveat: you play by our rules.

DR

[Tailgater]

When the surge is over and no progress is being made, will you still hold your views to stay the course? Everyone has a breaking point. What is yours?

Hey DR, since you are compiling a list...

[real american]

Edit: to save space

[real american]

I have a question.

Why would a pro-American boy that's practically in love with the Republican party and why they were sent to war...

...Have the New World Order sign in his avatar? I'm suddenly VERY suspicious.

Real American, if you're going to ignore my whole post because you can't respond to it (which is okay, I don't mind cowardice myself), perhaps you can still answer this question:

For what reasons, if any, is the blood of our soldiers worth the fight in Iraq? Please explain how the supposed benefits of our fight outweigh the costs.

Make a flow chart if it'll be easier for you.

Though I'm starting to wonder if it'll look like the flow chart at the end of this comic... http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=071201

two answers for that question

1. To establish a stable democracy there and leave when stable

2. If we leave now what would you say? We are already in there in the middle of a war, we should see it through. I asked my coach, he just came back from Iraq, if we are winning the war, he said "Yes." I ask many soldiers who were over there if we are winning they said "Yes." To stop the war now is just like pissing on the grave of all the soldiers who died in Iraq.

[real american]

Well, thank you, but then there is still this.....



RA, age aside, your OP attacks everything this country was founded on.

ETA:Maybe that statement is a little overboard. I honestly don't think most politicians want us to lose or see troops die. I don't think Republicans don't care if the troops die for what is trying to be done in Iraq, and I don't thinks Democrats want troops to die so we can give up and come home. The troops are stuck between ideas (one of the big problems with a non-defensive war in a democracy). I'm glad to see progress at the moment, and would like to see if it continues or not, but unless more is done politically, the troops will have to hold indefinitely and the surge is going to be over either way. Withdrawal has already been planned for that. When the surge is over and no progress is being made, will you still hold your views to stay the course? Everyone has a breaking point. What is yours?

What my breaking point is, good question. My breacking point is whe the death rate of our troops increases so much a draft will be made. My breaking point.

[real american]

Ah, well. Okay. No problem, then.

Well, except that wrestling is nothing more than soft-core gay porn, and he should feel ashamed... but not because he's a conspiracy theorist. :D

wrestling is not at all pornography, unless you count the diva pillow fight matches and things of that base. I myself am a big Hulk Hogan fan. If you say that pro-wrestling is a form of pornography how about greko-roman wrestling? is that pornography?

[Cleon]

wrestling is not at all pornography, unless you count the diva pillow fight matches and things of that base. I myself am a big Hulk Hogan fan. If you say that pro-wrestling is a form of pornography how about greko-roman wrestling? is that pornography?

Greco-Roman wrestling? The sport where two men strip down completely naked, their dangly bits swinging merrily in the breeze, then cover themselves with oil and grope each other?

Nope. Nothing pornographic or homoerotic about that. :rolleyes:

[real american]

Lazy, eh?

Strike one.

Dim, which means, I suppose that you are one of the Dims you are so upset about.

Strike two.

Watch carefully where I and others ask you some questions. From me, in post # 18 of this thread.

Dr Adequate asked a question:

Your reply to him was that this war would go on, even if the dims didn't want it to. That was not an answer to his question.

Lonewulf in post #118 asks you:

articulette asked you a series of related questions in post # 135. (Perhaps she meant them rhetorically, I am not sure.)

Normal Dude asks in post # 157

In post #158 Lonewulf asks you:

Lonewulf in post # 175 asks:

In post #198 I ask you a question:

So, real american, I suggest you answer up, or be held a lazy, clueless, nutless wonder. Your answers don't have to be any sort of "right" or "wrong," but they have to be your own, from your brain. Or, you run away, and it's

Strike three, you are outta here.

This forum is a tough room to work. It operates under the premise that critical thinking is a good idea, and that the exercise of one's own train of rational thought is best done before posting. Sharper blades than you have gotten rough handling here.

You want to play with the adults? Good, play on and play hard!

Caveat: you play by our rules.

DR

First off, I will not answer any questions by articullet. So listen here pal, I made the topic and I make the rules on how I will answer questions. So here are the rules;

1. I will answer each question in seperate posts.

2. I will not answer articullet's question.

So then pal I am not at all afraid of you "Play Hard" post. I have debated many of great posters and trolls. I don't back down.

[real american]

[QUOTE=Cleon;3217664]Greco-Roman wrestling? The sport where two men strip down completely naked, their dangly bits swinging merrily in the breeze, then cover themselves with oil and grope each other?

Nope. Nothing pornographic or homoerotic about that.QUOTE]

No Greco-roman aka Collegiate wrestling, I believe. I may have been wrong in the name though, I was told Collegiate was also called greco-roman.

[Cleon]

No Greco-roman aka Collegiate wrestling, I believe. I may have been wrong in the name though, I was told Collegiate was also called greco-roman.

It may well be. But the way the actual Greco-Romans wrestled was as I described.

[real american]

1.Did someone make you think this was a good idea or that you would be teaching people something useful?

2.Do you feel like you are doing good in someway by spreading this stuff?

3.What is your goal?

4.What makes you think you understand the issue via sound bites and propaganda while having no actual experience in the world or as an adult?

5.Have you ever spent time actually helping people and teaching people useful truths... or do you spend all your time getting indoctrinated and then flinging the propaganda at others with the notion that you are giving out bits of wisdom and platitudes?

1. No

2. I'll let you decide

3. No goal

4. I never said I did nor didn't

5. Yes

[real american]

It may well be. But the way the actual Greco-Romans wrestled was as I described.

well the one I talk of is not of that nature. You are cloathed and no oil is rubed on your body.

[real american]

Q.So if we were to pack up two infantry divisions and hurl them against China, would you still be yelling "Support the Troops!" in an effort to support the plan?

A. Right or wrong I support them, I have never served so I have no right to complain to the troops who protect me.

[real american]

Q. You think Iraq is the same? You think Iraq is worth the same cost, the same pain, the same blood? Is that blood such a cheap currency for you?

A. Yes it is worth the same pain and blood. No, it is not cheap. However many of soldiers would bleed to keep the strips red on the flag.

[real american]

Q. Happy now?

A. :rolleyes:

[Cleon]

well the one I talk of is not of that nature. You are cloathed and no oil is rubed on your body.

Yes, the groping is much more masculine that way.

[real american]

Yes, the groping is much more masculine that way.

I could say the same thing about football, I could say all they are is just a bunch of rednecks wanting a reason to fell a guy's a$$

[Lonewulf]

two answers for that question

1. To establish a stable democracy there and leave when stable

So you are saying that it is possible to erect a stable democracy in Iraq? I'm not quite so sure. I don't think that the Iraqi people are ready, mentally or societally, for any kind of a republic of any sort... I think that as soon as someone comes up promising to serve Allah, they will hand over their personal freedoms and liberties. From what I understand, my theory has already come true seeing who they actually voted for when the elections actually came...

And why should we be in Iraq to erect a stable democracy? Should we proselytize democracy to every country? What countries shouldn't we attack and kill their people for democracy?

2. If we leave now what would you say? We are already in there in the middle of a war, we should see it through. I asked my coach, he just came back from Iraq, if we are winning the war, he said "Yes." I ask many soldiers who were over there if we are winning they said "Yes." To stop the war now is just like pissing on the grave of all the soldiers who died in Iraq.
For how long?

No Greco-roman aka Collegiate wrestling, I believe. I may have been wrong in the name though, I was told Collegiate was also called greco-roman.
Greco-Roman is based on the old styles, though, and it was originally fought with no clothes when it was just Greek wrestling. Though the Romans weren't so big on that... so yeah, you're right. "Greco-Roman wrestling" isn't the same as "Greek wrestling".

I would still call it soft-core porn. You're talking about two barely dressed guys (at least, as they're usually shown on television) putting their hands all over each other, their heads between each other legs, and getting into some ... interesting positions.

Watch the UFF (Is that the name?), and if you watch some nastier wrestling like Brazlian Juijitsu, some of the holds look... REALLY pornographic. :D

What my breaking point is, good question. My breacking point is whe the death rate of our troops increases so much a draft will be made. My breaking point.
Well, at the very least, we have a limit here. That's good.

But if there is no draft coming, should we stay in Iraq indefinitely? Should we still be there in 2050? 2075? 2100?


I could say the same thing about football, I could say all they are is just a bunch of rednecks wanting a reason to fell a guy's a$$

Yeah, pretty much. I agree with you.

I love it when football jocks call computer science geeks "gay" and "faggots". They're willing to call someone a faggot for sitting at a computer and writing programs, while groping each other during a game, and showering together after... and then giving each other a slap on the ass just in case you were wondering.

Not gay at all. :D

[Normal Dude]

A. Right or wrong I support them, I have never served so I have no right to complain to the troops who protect me.

I think you have been led astray. Supporting the troops and supporting the plan are two ENTIRELY different things. People who support a pull-out of Iraq are still supporting the troops. A complete difference, and one that many politicians/people try to muddy for political gain by saying, "Support my plan or I'll say you don't support the troops!"

You have EVERY right, and a moral IMPERATIVE to do so, to speak up when you believe that soldiers are needlessly giving their limbs and lives for a cause that you don't believe is worth it. You think it is worth it? Fine. But some people don't.

I can count fifteen people I have known that have died in Iraq. Not all of them I knew well, but some I did. A few more have lost limbs.

This is a list of recent losses from my unit. One of my friends is on there. Click on the names for photos and information.
http://www.bragg.army.mil/82DV/casualty_releases.html


On this link click on the "GWOT Memorial" video. At the end of the video, you will see a long freaking list of names. These are the dead from my division alone.
http://www.bragg.army.mil/82DV/videos.htm


These weren't faceless uniforms. These were friends, colleagues, and leaders to me; brothers, wives, husbands, sons, and daughters to others; flesh and blood people. If they are going to be put in the breach and sacrificed for a cause, it had damn well better be a good one. And for that the American people, and the military, rely on an administration that has carefully considered this and decided the cause is just and the danger is warranted. This administration failed on both counts in regards to Iraq. And now we have 4,000+ Americans and who knows how many Iraqis (do not have figures in front of me) dead for it. In return for what? An adventure in a country that posed little threat to us? What have we, or the rest of the world, gained from this? Where else could we have gone or done that would have actually served to protect America and make the world a better place? Think about those questions.

This should royally piss you off. Your military experience, or lack thereof, has no import in this regard. You have every right to stand up and let it be known that you, the American public, whom we serve to protect, disapprove of how we are needlessly being put in harms way.

Rant over. Sorry, that went in territory I didn't mean to go into. Got a little carried away.


P.S. And BTW, I am recently out on medical disability and am not in the IRR. So anyone, don't bother trying to go to my unit and ratting me out. Hell, most of them would agree with me anyways. ;)

[godless dave]

This is not about Bush.This is about the troops. And yes I don't have a military background. However my uncle was in iraq for some time and also was givin the MacArthur Leadership Award. I have about of total of 8 vets in my famiy. I have know right to complain, but luckly I don't see anything to complain about. So I support what the troops are doing.

The troops are doing what Bush ordered them to do. So it IS about Bush.

I don't support what the troops are doing. What the troops are doing is bad for American interests. It is also not worth risking their lives for. The only thing worth risking their lives for is defending the security of the US and some of our allies. Establishing stable democracies in other countries, even if possible, is not what our military is for, and is not worth risking their lives for.

[godless dave]

Q.So if we were to pack up two infantry divisions and hurl them against China, would you still be yelling "Support the Troops!" in an effort to support the plan?

A. Right or wrong I support them, I have never served so I have no right to complain to the troops who protect me.

Is there anyone on this thread; hell, anyone on this whole FORUM, complaing to or about the troops?

Q. You think Iraq is the same? You think Iraq is worth the same cost, the same pain, the same blood? Is that blood such a cheap currency for you?

A. Yes it is worth the same pain and blood. No, it is not cheap. However many of soldiers would bleed to keep the strips red on the flag.

Yes they would. But that has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. The war in Iraq has zip to do with protecting the United States.

[Lonewulf]

So Real American just wants soldiers to die to "keep the red on the flag". Nothing else matters.

I'm thoroughly disgusted. 14 or no, I have no interest in ever meeting or speaking with Real American ever again.

I've got to go vomit.

[Upchurch]

This deserves to be repeated:

Supporting the troops and supporting the plan are two ENTIRELY different things. People who support a pull-out of Iraq are still supporting the troops. A complete difference, and one that many politicians/people try to muddy for political gain by saying, "Support my plan or I'll say you don't support the troops!"

Not supporting a mission is not the same thing as not supporting the troops. Conversely, supporting a reckless mission is not necessarily the same thing as supporting the troops.

[Ladewig]

To stop the war now is just like pissing on the grave of all the soldiers who died in Iraq.

What my breaking point is, good question. My breaking point is when the death rate of our troops increases so much a draft will be made.

So if we stop the war after a draft is introduced, then are we still pissing on the graves of the men and women who died there?

[Darth Rotor]

First off, I will not answer any questions by articullet.
But you did. ;)
1.Did someone make you think this was a good idea or that you would be teaching people something useful?

2.Do you feel like you are doing good in someway by spreading this stuff?

3.What is your goal?

4.What makes you think you understand the issue via sound bites and propaganda while having no actual experience in the world or as an adult?

5.Have you ever spent time actually helping people and teaching people useful truths... or do you spend all your time getting indoctrinated and then flinging the propaganda at others with the notion that you are giving out bits of wisdom and platitudes?

1. No

2. I'll let you decide

3. No goal

4. I never said I did nor didn't

5. Yes
So then pal I am not at all afraid of you "Play Hard" post. I have debated many of great posters and trolls. I don't back down.
As I suspected, the manhood challenge was all it took to get you to play ball. Good. Not a nutless wonder.

ETA: Not sure what your goals are in life, but if you have an interest in uniformed service, may as well start getting in shape now. Hauling a ruck and your kit is a hell of a lot of hard, physical work.

Who knows, in four years time, you might be allowed to become one of the Few, the Proud, the Marines.

Or, you'll do something else.

DR

[Dr Adequate]

Q.So if we were to pack up two infantry divisions and hurl them against China, would you still be yelling "Support the Troops!" in an effort to support the plan?

A. Right or wrong I support them, I have never served so I have no right to complain to the troops who protect me. So, let's try this again. If the government sent two divisions against China, would supporting the troops and supporting the battle plan be the same thing? Or would they be two different things?

[Dr Adequate]

Q. You think Iraq is the same? You think Iraq is worth the same cost, the same pain, the same blood? Is that blood such a cheap currency for you?

A. Yes it is worth the same pain and blood. No, it is not cheap. However many of soldiers would bleed to keep the strips red on the flag. Perhaps they had better stop before the red obliterates the white and the blue.

[Normal Dude]

Q.So if we were to pack up two infantry divisions and hurl them against China, would you still be yelling "Support the Troops!" in an effort to support the plan?

A. Right or wrong I support them, I have never served so I have no right to complain to the troops who protect me.

The point of this question was to show you that supporting the troops does not always mean supporting the plan.

China has a MASSIVE army. To have two infantry divisions put against them would invariably mean the complete annihilation of those divisions, for zero gain. In this (granted, extreme) case, your best course of action to support the troops would be to NOT support the plan.

[Lonewulf]

To be honest, I honestly don't care about supporting the troops, personally. Nor do I care about supporting America, or Republican Interests, Military Interests, or Industrial Interests. There's only one thing I care about: supporting the interests of humanity.

The rest is just bullspit.

[Tailgater]

Q. You think Iraq is the same? You think Iraq is worth the same cost, the same pain, the same blood? Is that blood such a cheap currency for you?

A. Yes it is worth the same pain and blood. No, it is not cheap. However many of soldiers would bleed to keep the strips red on the flag.

What do you think that means?

[Tailgater]

Q.So if we were to pack up two infantry divisions and hurl them against China, would you still be yelling "Support the Troops!" in an effort to support the plan?

A. Right or wrong I support them, I have never served so I have no right to complain to the troops who protect me.

You are overlapping support for the troops with supporting stupidity.

OK, let's make one of those extremely lame analogies. Suppose we did go to war with China (on shaky reasons to start with) and those two infantry divisions were only the beginning. Let's say the President thinks it is a good idea to send one division at a time and they are just getting slaughtered. If you speak out against this plan or the war, what does that have to do with the troops at all? Or, even if you agree with the war or the plan, how can you not understand how other people disagreeing is supporting the troops, is a right as an American, and right or wrong is not in any way un-American.

You stated the draft would be your breaking point. Why?
So when your "pro-war means supporting the troops" friends continue to tell you that not supporting the draft means pissing on the graves of soldiers, what will you tell them back?
How will respond when they say you are undermining America?
You are turning into a Liberal.
How do you respond?
You hate America.
How do you respond?
You do not support the troops.
How do you respond?

This country is not "us vs them", it is "We the people".

If you agree with the war, then argue for the war and the reasons for the war. People might not agree with you, but they might respect you. There are people who say that if you are a soldier at all, you are a volunteer baby-killer and don't deserve respect, but they are in the minority. Most understand that not everyone joins the military with the intention of going out to shoot someone. Don't take your anger at people like that and apply it to those who just don't want people to die on either side.

I didn't want this war, but the we went to war.
I don't think we should have killed off or let go all of Saddams government, but we did.
After that, the country should of been on total lockdown and the borders secured, but we let it bleed out for a couple years under Rummy. (not enough troops were used from day one)
and so on...I'm getting longwinded.

Many of us see the Iraq war to be just as stupid as throwing divisions at China.

I want the troops out, but I'll let the current progress speak for itself.
If when the surge is over and no political progress has been made and the body counts start to rise again, you can put me back in the "get out now"category.

The end. Peace. TG

[real american]

So Real American just wants soldiers to die to "keep the red on the flag". Nothing else matters.

I'm thoroughly disgusted. 14 or no, I have no interest in ever meeting or speaking with Real American ever again.

I've got to go vomit.

I never said that, I said most soldiers would i never said i want them to. So don't mix up the two.

[real american]

Ok. Lets say we did invade china, even though I don't think we would at this moment of time, yes I would support the troops, whatever the plan may be. but in some way I am being a hipocrit, I do support the idea of the iraq war but I don't think invading china is such a good idea, but I have no say in the army so I would have no control over it. Nuff Said.

[real american]

I ask that this thread be deleted, it has become nothing more than a slander topic. Thank You.

[Normal Dude]

Ok. Lets say we did invade china, even though I don't think we would at this moment of time, yes I would support the troops, whatever the plan may be. but in some way I am being a hipocrit, I do support the idea of the iraq war but I don't think invading china is such a good idea, but I have no say in the army so I would have no control over it. Nuff Said.

No, not "nuff said". You totally missed the point of the analogy, even when we explained it to you. Ok, let's try this again: The point we are trying to hammer home to you is that is you DO HAVE a RIGHT to speak up and say that a plan is nonsense, if you choose to do so. This also means that supporting the troops does not always mean supporting the plan. This is direct opposition to your original post. Do you understand this?

I ask that this thread be deleted, it has become nothing more than a slander topic. Thank You.

Way to run away when your opinions are challenged. I thought you didn't back down? Of course, you can always just admit that you were mistaken and we can move on.

[Dr Adequate]

Ok. Lets say we did invade china, even though I don't think we would at this moment of time, yes I would support the troops, whatever the plan may be. Would your support for the troops involve sharing their opposition to a bad plan?

Remember, the plan is not the troops. The troops are not the plan.

Troops != plan.

The plan is a thing that the troops are not.

Troops are not plans.

One way you can tell is that if you kill a plan, it doesn't bleed, but if you kill a soldier, he does.

but in some way I am being a hipocrit Yes, you are. You keep pretending that you "support the troops" when it's clear that what you actually support is the war.

[JoeEllison]

Did you know that the Marines want out of Iraq RIGHT NOW? Why not support the troops, and get them to Afghanistan, where they might actually do some good?

[real american]

I ask that this thread be deleted, it has become nothing more than a slander topic. I am not backing down but tierd of this, as I said in one thread befor this, no point in pi$$ing in the wind.

[JoeEllison]

I ask that this thread be deleted, it has become nothing more than a slander topic. I am not backing down but tierd of this, as I said in one thread befor this, no point in pi$$ing in the wind.

The real point is that you have staked out an indefensible position, and now that you've realized that we're not as gullible as you'd hoped, you want the evidence of your mistake to disappear.

That's completely weak.

[real american]

The real point is that you have staked out an indefensible position, and now that you've realized that we're not as gullible as you'd hoped, you want the evidence of your mistake to disappear.

That's completely weak.

Not at all, I never thought you all were gulible. I created this thread and many others and afterreading them I see they are sland threads from each side.

[Normal Dude]

I ask that this thread be deleted, it has become nothing more than a slander topic. I am not backing down but tierd of this, as I said in one thread befor this, no point in pi$$ing in the wind.

In the last few posts, have you seen any slander? Please point it out.

Or you could just apologize and acknowledge that you were mistaken. That would be the adult thing to do. We all screw up from time to time.

[JoeEllison]

Not at all, I never thought you all were gulible. I created this thread and many others and afterreading them I see they are sland threads from each side.

"Slander" involves an untruth. There have been no untruths directed at you. So, are you claiming that you're a liar?