Bad Things Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 Well said. This is brain dead. Where do you drop the nuke? Plus, at this point the resistance to the U.S. has nothing to do with Osama, and killing or capturing him would make little difference. All this tough guy rhetoric is idiotic. I don't know the answer, and this no help to the current mess, but we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place; It had nothing to do with 9/11 and anyone paying attention knew there were no WMD to be found. Many of us knew we were being lied to by the Bush administration and said so at the time. I'm sorry our soldiers have to be killed for the policy mistakes of a bunch of neocons with grandiose dreams of American hegemony. The men who started this war have been proven wrong repeatedly, about almost everything they said. Don't kid yourselves that the sacrifice of the men and women serving in Iraq is necessary for your freedom. This whole thing probably ought to go to the politics board. 397586[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKC Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 Show me proof of this........ I'm dim. War will end by next election. 397647[/snapback] I recall multiple incidents within my own division while I served of others being crushed, drowned, electrocuted and poisoned. Apparently his number is low- Military Mortality Report Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigAL Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 Perspective is necessary in analyzing the true impact of our necessary battle to answer the actions of radical Islam. Yesterday in the United States nearly 100 people were killed in automobile accidents. The same number will be killed today and that will happen every single day of this year. Do we find time for a cumulative mourning for these dead citizens who have died for no good purpose, in the name of nothing? Or do we accept this risk of turning that key for the convenience of the mobility offered- knowing that the danger can be mortal? At the same time do we risk allowing a movement which has proven itself to want one thing above all else- the imposition of Sharia Law upon first its own region and then the world- to spare some of the bravest and best among us who have chosen to fight this battle for us? Do we accept that our enemy has determined that we will tire so easily by their persistence that we will stand aside and allow their threat to spread throughout the world? Or do we stand for the freedom of women and that of our own safety, do we support our brave soldiers and their families as best we can? Do we force ourselves to show the same faith and hope that our soldiers must rely on every day to face their mission? Do we stand as proud, courageous Americans or do we become some historical joke like the cowardly French who without our American courage would today speak another language? The answer should be easy- unfortunately for the most gutless and cowardly among us it is not. Those who obstruct the mission of our soldiers by harming the recruitment of the best we can attract are the worst of all Americans. They stand behind the lie that "we support the troops but...". There is no "but"- the simple fact is that the only way you can support our troops is to allow the most effective recruitment of our youth to give those who choose to fight the best possible members fighting at their sides. Anything that obstructs recruitment leaves our bravest at a disadvantage, and theree's no patriotism in hurting those most of us honor. 397575[/snapback] So basically, anyone who disagrees with the current administrations decisions is the worst of all Americans and a coward? How patriotic of you. I suppose if our infallible government leaders pursued a course of genocide in the middle east, you'd be all for that too? Sorry, but I'm not willing to sacrifice my kids for a policy I believe to be a mistake. Now if the Bush twins went over there, I might reconsider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 That's damn right. Fight 'em over there. Those guys enlisted for their own reasons and gambled that they'd get want they wanted, and live to enjoy it. I'm sorry for their families and the dimwits around here who really truly think that these guys' deaths are necessary. Or that they'll make a difference. Because only a dimwit still thinks that military action can win this mission. And no-one's afraid of America any more. They've seen how easily we scare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKC Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 So basically, anyone who disagrees with the current administrations decisions is the worst of all Americans and a coward? How patriotic of you. I suppose if our infallible government leaders pursued a course of genocide in the middle east, you'd be all for that too? Sorry, but I'm not willing to sacrifice my kids for a policy I believe to be a mistake. Now if the Bush twins went over there, I might reconsider. 397669[/snapback] Yes. Contrary to the sniveling cowards who constantly berate our government and troops in this time war, the reality is that there are better and lesser Americans. The best are in uniform overseas. The worst are interfering with the free speech rights of our military recruiters. And based upon your lack of respect for our country it's hard to imagine that your kids would make very good soldiers anyway- better for them to sit back here and merely enjoy the freedoms won for us by those brave enough to stand up and fight in our name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. K Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 We will persevere because luckily many of us do recognize that this monster that is Wahabi radicalism is NOT what the pacifists believe it is- some type of rational reaction to our "intruding" on their land. In fact, anyone with even a limited set of live brain cells should be able to recognize why the Wahabis have been insistent on getting American Troops out of the Middle East- they are right now backed up after losing Afghanistan as their little Sharia experiment and they are desperate to take over Saudi Arabi, the place which except for oil revenues and royal palaces they rule over already. The terrorists knows the stakes in Iraq- it's the Super Bowl for them; they lose Iraq and a Democracy evolves in one of the most strategic and wealthy countries in the Middle East and their game is over. It's only American pacifists, the same group (Dem Pols like Kennedys and the Liberal Media like Hearst and celebs like Lindburgh) who told us Hitler wasn't such a bad guy if we would all just leave him alone. They're all out here again telling us "Iraq has nothing to do with blah blah blah". And once again we'll suffer them as our fellow citizens, as wrong as they are- once again. And how about poor Abe Linccoln- can you imagine today's crybabies during the Civil War- YOU LIED ABOUT WHY WE WENT TO WAR WE DIDN'T WANT TO DIE OVER SLAVES WE WANT OUR MOMMIES!!!!!!!!!!! 397637[/snapback] You compare Bush to Lincoln, call William Randolph Hearst and Charles Lindbergh liberals, compare the Iraq War with WWII--and I'm the one who can't face reality. I have no sympathy for the Islamicists and Wahabi radicals. But they are not going to take over the world even if they take over Saudi Arabia. If we could wean outselves off arabian oil (we get 70 percent of our oil today from sources in the New World; if you throw in Africa and Indonesia, then less than 20% of our oil imports come from Arab countries) we wouldn't need troops in the Middle East, ahd the whole issue would be moot. We'd be better off spending the billions we're wasting on Iraq (to say nothing of the civilians and soldiers getting killed) working on alternative energy sources and energy independence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKC Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 They've seen how easily we scare. 397670[/snapback] They've only seen how easily the most cowardly and politically opportunistic of us scare- but then again it is the weakest among us that the terrorists hope to convince that we should simply allow them to have their way first in the Middle East and then beyond. Thank God for the brave Americans who recognize the enemy and are willing to fight for us, and may there be a viscious penalty for those who would hurt their mission by interfering with our ability to offer the best of our youth an opportunity to sacrifice as others have before them. May the best of us also truly support them by controlling our tongues back here so we can avoid what happened to the poor unfortunate heros of Vietnam who continue to be scorned because of the hateful tone of that anti-war movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 Tom, The same data that AKC linked to, but in a spreadsheet version with numbers for each year. Sorry I didn't download it when I saw it at least a year ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 So basically, anyone who disagrees with the current administrations decisions is the worst of all Americans and a coward? How patriotic of you. I suppose if our infallible government leaders pursued a course of genocide in the middle east, you'd be all for that too? Sorry, but I'm not willing to sacrifice my kids for a policy I believe to be a mistake. Now if the Bush twins went over there, I might reconsider. 397669[/snapback] Which of your kids volunteered to be in the military? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 You compare Bush to Lincoln, call William Randolph Hearst and Charles Lindbergh liberals, compare the Iraq War with WWII--and I'm the one who can't face reality. I have no sympathy for the Islamicists and Wahabi radicals. But they are not going to take over the world even if they take over Saudi Arabia. If we could wean outselves off arabian oil (we get 70 percent of our oil today from sources in the New World; if you throw in Africa and Indonesia, then less than 20% of our oil imports come from Arab countries) we wouldn't need troops in the Middle East, ahd the whole issue would be moot. We'd be better off spending the billions we're wasting on Iraq (to say nothing of the civilians and soldiers getting killed) working on alternative energy sources and energy independence. 397674[/snapback] Yeah, I'm sure the Middle East would be a WAY better place if everyone stopped buying oil. Everything would be sunshine and roses then. Let me know when you publish your "How to Make the World a Perfect Place" manual. Can't wait to read all the answers the liberal mind can put to paper, even though their big government mantra is the real reason behind most of the world's strife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 You compare Bush to Lincoln, call William Randolph Hearst and Charles Lindbergh liberals, compare the Iraq War with WWII--and I'm the one who can't face reality. I have no sympathy for the Islamicists and Wahabi radicals. But they are not going to take over the world even if they take over Saudi Arabia. If we could wean outselves off arabian oil (we get 70 percent of our oil today from sources in the New World; if you throw in Africa and Indonesia, then less than 20% of our oil imports come from Arab countries) we wouldn't need troops in the Middle East, ahd the whole issue would be moot. We'd be better off spending the billions we're wasting on Iraq (to say nothing of the civilians and soldiers getting killed) working on alternative energy sources and energy independence. 397674[/snapback] For a supposed knowledgeable man, you sure got sucked into BS. Again, I'm glad my children dont sit in a class with you. I wish I could tell your students how left of center you are. Sad........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. K Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 Yeah, I'm sure the Middle East would be a WAY better place if everyone stopped buying oil. Everything would be sunshine and roses then. Let me know when you publish your "How to Make the World a Perfect Place" manual. Can't wait to read all the answers the liberal mind can put to paper. 397696[/snapback] WTF are you talking about? I am not interested in making the Middle East a perfect place. I am interested in getting my country out of the mess this current administration has put it in. I thought you were smarter than that. Your comment doesn't even rise to the leve of a cheap shot--it's so wildly off the mark that it's moronic. I haven't been over to this board in eight or ten months because it turned into a right-wing echo chamber, and I can see that it hasn't gotten any better. C-Ya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKC Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 You compare Bush to Lincoln, call William Randolph Hearst and Charles Lindbergh liberals, compare the Iraq War with WWII--and I'm the one who can't face reality. 397674[/snapback] Ah- Reality! Try it on! Hearst, who served as a Democratic in the House of Representatives and ran for the Democratic nomination for President represents (in my analogy) the liberal press of today. Like today's press, there was then in his papers outright opposition to any attempt to contain Hitler and the plea to his reader's to understand that "Hitler is no threat". Lindbergh was possibly the major celebrity of his day, and with that celebrity he insisted Hitler wasn't a bad guy- in fact dining with Hitler in his travels. You may not sense the Deja Vu in that with our current celebrity meltdowns, I think others may find it interesting that the parallels between the foolish celebrities of both eras are so obvious. You might find this of value: Lindbergh's role in bringing Hitler to power Since there's no reference in my post to George Bush at all I'll simply assume you were so flummoxed trying to find a logical way to support your position that you simply fabricated that fantasy. You used to be better at this ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. K Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 For a supposed knowledgeable man, you sure got sucked into BS. Again, I'm glad my children dont sit in a class with you. I wish I could tell your students how left of center you are. Sad........ 397699[/snapback] Can you explain to me what part of my post is BS? If my students weren't any better than you at defending their point of view they would flunk the class. The oil import figures are from www.census.gov/foreign-trade for 2001. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 WTF are you talking about? I am not interested in making the Middle East a perfect place. I am interested in getting my country out of the mess this current administration has put it in. I thought you were smarter than that. Your comment doesn't even rise to the leve of a cheap shot--it's so wildly off the mark that it's moronic. I haven't been over to this board in eight or ten months because it turned into a right-wing echo chamber, and I can see that it hasn't gotten any better. C-Ya 397704[/snapback] Sorry that you're still having such a hard time seeing the big picture that the world actually is. I guess you'd hang around more often if we could all see big government as the answer to just about every problem, as you do. The fact is, if you want the government involved in just about every facet of your life, you're going to get a ton of bad stuff you didn't bargain for. You turn off the only decent economic return that a region has, you're not going to get rid of a problem that caused mostly by LACK OF OPPORTUNITY/HOPE. Your condescension is laughable. "I thought you were smarter than that?" Please. Perhaps we can turn ol' PPP into a place you'd be more comfortable by pretending you lefties have a clue while espousing how intellectually challenged everyone is who deigns to disagree with your "thoughts." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. K Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 Ah- Reality! Try it on! Hearst, who served as a Democratic in the House of Representatives and ran for the Democratic nomination for President represents the liberal press of today. Like todays press, there was then in his papers outright opposition to any war to stop Hitler and the plea to all to understand that "Hitler is no threat". Lindbergh was possibly the major celebrity of his day, and with that celebrity he insisted Hitler wasn't a bad guy- in fact dining with Hitler in his travels. You may not sense the Deja Vu in that with our current celebrity meltdowns, I think others may find it interesting that the parallels between the foolish celebrities of both eras are so obvious. You might find this of value: Lindbergh's role in bringing Hitler to power Since there's no reference in my post to George Bush at all I'll simply assume you were so flummoxed trying to find a logical way to support your position that you simply fabricated that fantasy. You used to a lot better at this ;-) 397708[/snapback] I know about Lindbergh and Hearst's support for Hitler. But they were both right-wingers, not liberals. Your attempt to put them on the left is laughable. You made a comparison of Bush to Lincoln by saying that those who complain about Bush's lies would have said the same thing to Lincoln during the Civil War. Is that too hard for you to figure out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 they would flunk the class. 397709[/snapback] I'd consider that a badge of honor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. K Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 Sorry that you're still having such a hard time seeing the big picture that the world actually is. I guess you'd hang around more often if we could all see big government as the answer to just about every problem, as you do. The fact is, if you want the government involved in just about every facet of your life, you're going to get a ton of bad stuff you didn't bargain for. You turn off the only decent economic return that a region has, you're not going to get rid of a problem that caused mostly by LACK OF OPPORTUNITY/HOPE. Your condescension is laughable. "I thought you were smarter than that?" Please. Perhaps we can turn ol' PPP into a place you'd be more comfortable by pretending you lefties have a clue while espousing how intellectually challenged everyone is who deigns to disagree with your "thoughts." 397710[/snapback] Pathetic. Desperate. Laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 If the drum-beat of "if it bleeds, it leads" by the media is wearing on you, if repetitive servings of Terrorist Helper® by the media are getting you down, you can always turn to sites like Arthur Chrenkoff's blog, which details undercovered good news from Iraq. Good news from Iraq, part 24. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 Pathetic. Desperate. Laughable. 397717[/snapback] Let me guess, that response would get an "A" in your class? It's nice to see your hypocrisy hasn't changed since your last visit, "Doc." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts