Alaska Darin Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 Ya know what Darin, I'm not sure what I believe anymore. I can't trust the parties, I can't believe the news and there's so much partisanship that it makes me want to move to Canada. All I know is this: We are at war and supposedly fighting terrorrism. The reason we went to war has been proven false. American boys and girls are dying at an alarming rate and it disturbs me greatly. I've got friends and neighbors serving in Iraq and they're telling me that it's an absolute clusterf*ck over there. I'm not sure if Bush plans on invading Iran, North Korea....... I want sudden massive change...more change than one election is going to bring. 74471[/snapback] Welcome to the dance, paahdnah. Regardless of which of these buffoons wins the election or which of these groups of criminals controls the legislative arm, we will continue to head down the path towards the government our Founding Fathers were willing to give their lives to escape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 Tom, You're smarter than this! You don't find any irony in the fact that our representatives have ONE fricken child currently serving? You don't think that the vote on the war would have gone differently if there were a couple of hundred children of our representatives serving? When was the last time you saw a Senator or Legislator wailing and screaming on a sidewalk in Washington because they just found out THEIR child had been killed? Support the war, send your own kids! 74424[/snapback] Irony? No. Seems to me like an accurate cross-section of America. Pick any 500 American families at random, and I'll lay odds that on average you'll only find one or two that have children serving. Plus...I still don't see what it has to do with the parents that their children didn't volunteer for service. Again...what are you trying to say? That congresscritters who don't force their children into the military are irresponsible or incapable of doing their jobs? Why is it bad that the concept of an "all-volunteer military" also applies to the children of elected officials? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gantrules Posted October 18, 2004 Author Share Posted October 18, 2004 Rich...I'll check it out. This is a movie that is easy to find, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 We are at war and supposedly fighting terrorrism. The reason we went to war has been proven false. September 11, 2001 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 September 11, 2001 74578[/snapback] That, sir, is a global view of things that the left will never, ever, ever, ever understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 Irony? No. Seems to me like an accurate cross-section of America. Pick any 500 American families at random, and I'll lay odds that on average you'll only find one or two that have children serving. Plus...I still don't see what it has to do with the parents that their children didn't volunteer for service. Again...what are you trying to say? That congresscritters who don't force their children into the military are irresponsible or incapable of doing their jobs? Why is it bad that the concept of an "all-volunteer military" also applies to the children of elected officials? 74479[/snapback] I think the point is that if the Congresscritters had family that could be involved in the conflict they might think twice about endorsing a war fought under suspect rationalizations. I do agree, it's foolish to think about anyone in Congress "sending their own kids to war" in the sense that soldiers have generally entered the military of their own volition. Moore made a stronger point in pointing out that often, people who have entered the military have done so to escape the clutches of poverty, and in a place like Flint it's one of the ONLY ways to do so. I can't recall the last time Bush mentioned the poverty problem; it's one he'd like to ignore. Regardless, the military is a government program with its pluses and minuses, and obviously those who enter it should understand they CAN be put in harm's way if the country requires it. The question was, did the country really require it in Iraq more than any other place on earth? And if so, why were the people up top not more vigilant in their preparations for a postwar insurgency? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 That, sir, is a global view of things that the left will never, ever, ever, ever understand. 74663[/snapback] IE September 11 gives us our government license to do whatever it feels like, with justifications that can change with the wind, and without proper planning if necessary. Never mind the real threats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike in Syracuse Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 September 11, 2001 74578[/snapback] I'm sorry, did Iraq attack us? Perhaps we should invade Saudi Arabia! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 I'm sorry, did Iraq attack us? Perhaps we should invade Saudi Arabia! 74970[/snapback] Whether the reason for extending the "War on Terror" into Iraq is proven to be false or not, that doesnt change the fact that EVERYTHING in the Bush Doctrine comes out of what took place on Sept 11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 I'm sorry, did Iraq attack us? Perhaps we should invade Saudi Arabia! 74970[/snapback] Or Pakistan...since they supported the Taliban and al Qaeda FAR more than the Saudis did. That's such wonderful logic: "Two-thirds of the hijackers were Saudi - therefore the whole country attacked us." The House of Saud is probably about as responsible for 9/11 as the Clinton administration... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike in Syracuse Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 Or Pakistan...since they supported the Taliban and al Qaeda FAR more than the Saudis did. That's such wonderful logic: "Two-thirds of the hijackers were Saudi - therefore the whole country attacked us." The House of Saud is probably about as responsible for 9/11 as the Clinton administration... 75014[/snapback] So we attacked Iraq????.......BRILLIANT! Over 1000 dead U.S. troops and ZERO WMD's. Yup, that was a good call. How exactly does that help us get the guys that were behind 9/11? The logic on this board is mind boggling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 Or Pakistan...since they supported the Taliban and al Qaeda FAR more than the Saudis did. That's such wonderful logic: "Two-thirds of the hijackers were Saudi - therefore the whole country attacked us." The House of Saud is probably about as responsible for 9/11 as the Clinton administration... 75014[/snapback] Just leave the House of Saud standing and attack everyone else. They are such nice leaders. I am sure they won't mind after all you would only be obliterating only 20% of the total Saudi wealth... Basically, everything would remain in tact. Better yet, just use the Neutron Bomb... Again, the House wouldn't mind... Afterall, they are such nice leaders. Maybe, we can put them on Sesame Street and teach them to share? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 So we attacked Iraq????.......BRILLIANT! Over 1000 dead U.S. troops and ZERO WMD's. Yup, that was a good call. How exactly does that help us get the guys that were behind 9/11? The logic on this board is mind boggling. 75023[/snapback] Oh, I'm sorry...we were talking about Iraq? I hadn't realized...since one of you pea-brained bobbleheads YET AGAIN BROUGHT UP SAUDI ARABIA!!!! I thought that was the topic... Christ...the logic behind going into Iraq is 1) specious, and 2) no more ridiculous than shouting "What about Saudi Arabia! We should attack Saudi Arabia because the members of al Qaeda that were backed by Pakistan are Saudi citizens!" Nothing more satisfying that replacing reason and critical thought with a heartfelt knee-jerk reaction, is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts