billsfanone Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 No. Eat a smelly Iraqi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 Someone make them drink a Tango? 506215[/snapback] what better to wash down retatta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 That's true. Everyone is always so respectful of each other's opinions on PPP, aren't they? 505964[/snapback] I'm disappointed. I really thought you'd hammer the irony of me calling someone else condescending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 SHould I assume you're directing that at me and not SilverNRed? If so: 1. Sorry if I misspelled something. I'm probably not the world's greatest typist. Hopefully the gist of my argument was clear even if my spelling was not. 2. Thanks for serving, and welcome home. 3. I'm familiar with those words, which is why I thanked you for serving. I'm also familiar with the differences between terrorists and an army on the field in combat. But that does not mean that armies in the field can't be wrong. I don't think the use of torture or chemical weapons is an accurate reflection of the ideals of our country - or of the brave men and women who have, who do now, and who will in the future, serve it. All of those those brave men and women are better than that. And that's one of the things that I don't like. Using chemical weapons in combat is "fine" for Germany in WWI, or Saddam Hussein against the Kurds, but not for us. Our soldiers, past present, and future, don't deserve to be associated with them. Torture is "fine" for despotic regimes, but not for us, not for our military. Unfortunately, torturing detainees and using chemical weapons have occured. It's a blight on them, and it's a blight on us. But we can not ignore it. Nor can we justify it. Attempting to do so would make us no better than WWI Germans or Hussein himself. The citizens of this country and the men and women who have served/do serve/will serve deserve better IMO. 505801[/snapback] Campy, I apologize if I gave you the wrong impression but my post was directed to SilverNRed, not you. In fact I am in near complete agreement with everything you just said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 Campy, I apologize if I gave you the wrong impression but my post was directed to SilverNRed, not you. In fact I am in near complete agreement with everything you just said. 506262[/snapback] In that case, I'll just say that no, what I said doesn't mean soldiers in the field are never wrong, but that I'm in no position to judge them. And neither are you and neither is Campy. We aren't being shot at so we can't judge them based on what weapons or tactics they're using to fight insurgents/terrorists. I'd feel pretty silly calling a guy coming back from Iraq a war criminal based on a newspaper article I read on the internet. Bottom line is I'll give our troops the benefit of the doubt over the reporters trying to "cover" the war (and by "cover" I mean come up with breathless, sensationalized stories). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 Damn...you sure that's not an emetic? 506204[/snapback] I'm a beer drinker myself, so most of these mixed drinks are emetics in my opinion. I'd probably actually consider it a moron's martini, but I think we're getting down to semantics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 No. Eat a smelly Iraqi. 506217[/snapback] You're late for your KKK meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 AP article linky linky That right there is a war crime boys and girls. 505660[/snapback] It would certainly be a war crime if it was used on civilians but, so far, the pentagon has only admitted to using it against insurgents (after denying this for months and claiming that it was only used as a smokescreen or for illumination purposes) though it would not be beyond the bounds of possibility that civilians were affected by it, as the Italian documentary claims. I'm not sure if it's really that credible that those who were denying this for so long really did not know what their soldiers were doing. More on WP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 You really think people think like that? 506096[/snapback] It was a caricature (an exaggerated cartoon) of the mentality I've seen on display here (and in the real world) over the past couple years. People have claimed that the only good arab is a dead arab (substitute arab with muslem, there's been plenty of that too). It seems to me that many people, most people, could care less about the Constitution. If they cared, why didn't every American rise up and urge Bush to not invade Iraq? He had no legal ground to do so. Why was it that few people here, regardless of political party, expressed concern or outrage over the Patriot Act which chipped away at the right of privacy? Why is it that people fail to recognise that when the US Government detains people, those detained are promised due process and a speedy trial (POWs are an exception by virtue of the US being a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. The gov't has already said that "detainees" are not POWs). There's that old axiom that ends with "and when they came for me, there was no one left to defend me." It speaks to the slow errosion of rights and the trashing of the Constitution. It is happening now, whether people want to see it or not. There was a national ID card provision tucked away in an appropriations bill to provide more money for the war. Again, if that's not unconstitutional by its very existence, it certainly opens the door for abuse. Yet nobody here seems to care (by virtue of the lack of posts) that we just took another step toward Big Brother. The Katie Couric reference speaks to the people who fail to see that their rights, that the ideals of their country, and that their Constitution, are all being gutted in the interest of... uhmm... Well, I'm not sure why. I guess because we're allowing it to happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 The WMDs were given to Iraq by Reagan and Rummy during the 80s. They have a shelf-ife of about 10 years. 505606[/snapback] Prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 Prove it. 506349[/snapback] The monkey already addressed it a few posts after the one you quoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 The WMDs were given to Iraq by Reagan and Rummy during the 80s. They have a shelf-ife of about 10 years. 506349[/snapback] Twinkies only have a shelf life of 30 days, but if you open one thats a year old its still good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts