Dems DO NOT Support the Troops

[Calm2Chaos]

Well, as much as I appreciate that I made an impression on you ...

While by definition, your statement is correct, the only truth in your statement to be correct was about the state of your mind and the doubt therein. I wholeheartedly and earnestly believe you on this count. I mean, who, other than you, is the authority on the contents of your own mind?
However, as to your supposition re my hypothetical behavior, I think you are wrong. But, just as you are the expert on the contents of your mind, perhaps you are also the expert on the contents of my mind as well. I mean just because I think you're utterly wrong, that may not mean you are. Perhaps you have a better grasp on me and my thoughts than I do. It would be a very fascinating turn of affairs if it turns out that you know me better than I know myself. It would, in fact be quite remarkable. Alas, since this is all about a hypothetical situation that has not occurred, we will never have an opportunity to see if you know my mind better than I do.

I'd also like to take the time to point out that since this all about your beliefs (of undetermined validity) about a hypothetical situation that has not occurred, it's irrelevant to the discussion.

General Taguba's trying to kill the military? :shock:


Boy, I'll say. who'd've thunk? And from a general to boot!

The General got his info from the very prisoners claiming the abuse.....Pretty simple.

I have no clue whats in your mind. What I am saying is that I can see how YOU would believe the word of a prisoner over the word of US soldiers, no matter who brought the word forward. And if the situation was reversed I think your opinion would be also IMO...

 

[oldreliable67]

Billo,

In your current state of mind, here is something that might appeal to you...

SALON'S CARY TENNIS TALKS REVOLUTION:

At a certain point in the near future, if the current oligarchy cannot be removed via the ballot, direct political action may become an urgent and compelling mission. It may then be necessary for many people in many walks of life to put their bodies on the line. For the moment, however, although pressing and profound questions have arisen about whether the current government is even legitimate, i.e., properly elected, there still remains a chance to remove this government peacefully in the 2008 election. (Or am I living in a dream world?)

I do think this regime's removal is the most urgent matter before the country today. . . . This is all terrible and rather fantastic to contemplate. But what assurances have we that it is not all quite plausible? Having discarded the principles that Jefferson & Co. espoused, the current regime seems capable of anything. I know that my imagination is a feverish instrument. But are we not living in feverish times, in times of the unthinkable?

Source.

Was reminded of you when I read that.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The General got his info from the very prisoners claiming the abuse.....Pretty simple.

And the General found these claims to be credible. Uncomplicated.

I have no clue whats in your mind.

What I am saying is that I can see how YOU would believe the word of a prisoner over the word of US soldiers..

So, without a clue, you can see what's in my mind. I see. Do you think what you've sees w/o a clue is reliable info? What about after you factor in my appraisal of your sighting as erroneous?

And if the situation was reversed I think your opinion would be also IMO...

So you're also thinking about what's in my mind w/o a clue as to what it is. [Spock]Fascinating.[/Spock]
Fascinating but still irrelevant.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

And the General found these claims to be credible. Uncomplicated.

And you would believe the word of a Prisoner over a US Soldier.
Obvious.

So, without a clue, you can see what's in my mind. I see. Do you think what you've sees w/o a clue is reliable info? What about after you factor in my appraisal of your sighting as erroneous?

I have made a judgement call about you, much like the general did. Based on what I have read from you in other posts.
Simple.

So you're also thinking about what's in my mind w/o a clue as to what it is. [Spock]Fascinating.[/Spock]
Fascinating but still irrelevant.

NOPE .. Just stating the obvious. But you can continue to bable on.. I will gladly respond as long as I don't get a mod pile on... I already had one of those...:rofl

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by oldreliable67:
Was reminded of you when I read that.

I don't know how to comment on this because I don't know the context of what was being discussed. If you can tell me what this was in reference too, I might be able to tell you whether your on the money or not.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Calm2Chaos
And who's fault is that... AGAIN>> THATS STUPID.. If you join the military you know what your job and duty is. You know what the results can be. You are a soldier, if you have no desire to soldier DO NOT JOIN THE MILITARY!!!! Your definition of making clear is murky at worst. And an outright lie at best.

I completely agree one should know what their job and duty is. And if they don't, they should not join. Which part did you think might be an outright lie?

Originally Posted by Calm2Chaos
Would seem your only concern here is that there wasn't a flag associated with the deaths of 3000 Americans. Your right, Iraq did not play a starring role in the attack. BUt Iraq and Saddam have played roles in the assistance, training, safe haven and rewarding of terrorist and there attacks on innocent people. But your not going to find a the flag for our enimies. There is no way to sit back and wait for them to come to you, you have to go to them.

Do you not know how wrong it is to attack a country that did nothing to you? It is the same as if Roosevelt attacked Mexico over Pearl Harbor. But you don't have a problem with that, do you?

Originally Posted by Calm2Chaos
Again by your definition we would allow REPEATED strikes against our country and our citizens. There would be blood running down the streets and yet we wouldn't respond because there was no clear flag involved in the killings.

I don't know how you get repeated strikes out of what I have said. They (Iraq) didn't strike us. So that statement really has nothing to do with what were talking about. I think if someone attacks us, we kick their ass. But we kick the ass of the one responsible. We don't scapegoat something of this magnitude.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

I completely agree one should know what their job and duty is. And if they don't, they should not join. Which part did you think might be an outright lie?

That the President doesn't care if soldiers live or die

Do you not know how wrong it is to attack a country that did nothing to you? It is the same as if Roosevelt attacked Mexico over Pearl Harbor. But you don't have a problem with that, do you?

If Mexico assisted in helping the japenese train, and gave them safehaven i could see the argument for war. But then again I would go directly to the source since the source is obvious

I don't know how you get repeated strikes out of what I have said. They (Iraq) didn't strike us. So that statement really has nothing to do with what were talking about. I think if someone attacks us, we kick their ass. But we kick the ass of the one responsible. We don't scapegoat something of this magnitude.

Because your version or your definition is that unless there is a known Country or a defined enemy, there is no way to attack. So after 9/11 there was no 1 country to blame so we shouldn't attack. Then after the next terrorist attack there is still no 1 country to blame. This can go on infinitum. Since they are terrorist there is no 1 country to attack so we just continue to allow the attacks and the death of our citizens...Or we go after those that assisted the people responsible for terrorist actions. Iraq is one, a small one I think. I think you need to start eyeing Syrian and Iran and maybe a few more also. But we don't have the capabilities to fight 5 wars on 5 fronts. Allowing terrorist attacks does not solve anything, Clinton proved that.... Fight them there or here, either way... Your going to fight them

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Calm2Chaos
Because your version or your definition is that unless there is a known Country or a defined enemy, there is no way to attack. So after 9/11 there was no 1 country to blame so we shouldn't attack. Then after the next terrorist attack there is still no 1 country to blame. This can go on infinitum. Since they are terrorist there is no 1 country to attack so we just continue to allow the attacks and the death of our citizens...Or we go after those that assisted the people responsible for terrorist actions. Iraq is one, a small one I think. I think you need to start eyeing Syrian and Iran and maybe a few more also. But we don't have the capabilities to fight 5 wars on 5 fronts. Allowing terrorist attacks does not solve anything, Clinton proved that.... Fight them there or here, either way... Your going to fight them

How about taking away the reasons to attack us in the first place? You don't just decide this one day while sitting around. You have to have a real hate-on to do this kind of thing. Why don't you ask yourself why these people are so mad at us? I don't think it is because they are jealous of our freedom.

 

[oldreliable67]

Billo,

If you can tell me what this was in reference too,

It was in reference to your repeated declarations of how much you hate Bush.

Why don't you ask yourself why these people are so mad at us?

Have you read bin Ladens fatwa? Issued in February 1998, it says in part,

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, ...

He lists these reasons for the fatwa,

1) "First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam ... The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people..."

2) "Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, in excess of 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

So now they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors."

3) "Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. "

Source.

Notice the emphasis on Iraq? It has been well-documented that Saddam and bin Laden were not bosom buddies. But for bin Laden to emphasize the trials and tribulations of the Iraqi people this way, clearly 9/11 was retaliation not only for the presence of the US military in his home country of Saudi Arabia, but it was for the first Gulf War and bin Laden's view of our "continuing aggression against the Iraqi people" as well.

This is complete and total speculation on my part, but frankly, given the failures of the USIC, I would not be surprised if there weren't more, possibly much more to discovered about a Saddam - bin Laden relationship. To put it in Simon's terms, it would not surprise if we eventually learn that there was indeed a "collaborative and operational" relationship between Saddam and bin Laden.

Bottom line: the USIC failed in so many ways in so many other aspects in ME intelligence, why could they have not failed in this one as well. Repeating the caveat: total speculation on my part, just wild-a## blue-sky wondering.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by oldreliable67:
Notice the emphasis on Iraq? It has been well-documented that Saddam and bin Laden were not bosom buddies. But for bin Laden to emphasize the trials and tribulations of the Iraqi people this way, clearly 9/11 was retaliation not only for the presence of the US military in his home country of Saudi Arabia, but it was for the first Gulf War and bin Laden's view of our "continuing aggression against the Iraqi people" as well.

This is complete and total speculation on my part, but frankly, given the failures of the USIC, I would not be surprised if there weren't more, possibly much more to discovered about a Saddam - bin Laden relationship. To put it in Simon's terms, it would not surprise if we eventually learn that there was indeed a "collaborative and operational" relationship between Saddam and bin Laden.

Bottom line: the USIC failed in so many ways in so many other aspects in ME intelligence, why could they have not failed in this one as well. Repeating the caveat: total speculation on my part, just wild-a## blue-sky wondering.

If a collaborative effort between Bin Laden and Hussein was proven, I think it would be the first time in the history of the world that an Islamic Fundamentalist and a Secular Dictator joined forces.

I don't think I've been stating how much I hate Bush. I don't hate him as a person at all. I hate what he is doing. I have a right to address my greivances. I also think I have a duty as a citizen to do this as well. Even if the latter two were not true, the fact that I've been paying taxes every year since 1973 means that I'm going to do it anyway.

 

[oldreliable67]

it would be the first time in the history of the world that an Islamic Fundamentalist and a Secular Dictator joined forces.

Ah, but over the course of history, stranger marriages of convenience have taken place! It is true, of course, that in normal times (if there can be said to be such a thing in the ME), Saddam and bin Laden would have been enemies. But, consider that both have the US as a common enemy. And there is no place in the world where the old dictum of "The enemy of enemy is my friend" is employed more often. Like I said, just total speculation, prompted by bin Laden's emphasis on Iraq in his fatwa, coupled with a 'stranger things have happened in the ME' thought.

I have a right to address my greivances. I also think I have a duty as a citizen to do this as well.

Absolutely. As do we all. And too many of us ignore the 'duty' aspect, as witness our characteristically low voter turnouts. The last time I was active in an election was way back when Howard Baker was still active. But given all thats going on, I am determined to and will be involved again - and I hope lots more of all of us, including Billo, will be, come 2006 and 2008.

But your remarks of late have really been, well, over the top, IMO, in terms of invective. They really suggest considerably more, way lots more, than just a dislike. But hey, thats just my impression - nothing more,nothing less.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by oldreliable67:
But your remarks of late have really been, well, over the top, IMO, in terms of invective. They really suggest considerably more, way lots more, than just a dislike. But hey, thats just my impression - nothing more,nothing less.

Your comments are always welcome.

 

[shuamort]

What the hell does Support the Troops mean anyway? I'm so sick of this buzzword phrase. What are you physically doing when you support a troop? Making their car payments? Paying their mortgages? Babysitting their kids? Taking out their wife so she doesn't get lonely? Don't answer the last one.

Apparently it's getting the yellow ribbon magnet for the back of the car. The one manufactured in a foreign country.

Lip service seems to work too.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

How about taking away the reasons to attack us in the first place? You don't just decide this one day while sitting around. You have to have a real hate-on to do this kind of thing. Why don't you ask yourself why these people are so mad at us? I don't think it is because they are jealous of our freedom.

Thats where we differ then. I think it has a lot to do with our freedoms, our lifestyle, there brainwashing, there beliefs, there religion. And yes yes yes it also has to do with our foriegn policy. The truth is I don't care there reason. Because I doubt a single person killed on 9/11 had anything to do with there problems. They were innocent and were murdered for no reason in cold blood. Then there deaths were cheered. I think anyone capable of this is detriment to the global community.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Calm2Chaos
Thats where we differ then. I think it has a lot to do with our freedoms, our lifestyle, there brainwashing, there beliefs, there religion. And yes yes yes it also has to do with our foriegn policy. The truth is I don't care there reason. Because I doubt a single person killed on 9/11 had anything to do with there problems. They were innocent and were murdered for no reason in cold blood. Then there deaths were cheered. I think anyone capable of this is detriment to the global community.

Well, thank you for at least acknowledging that on some level our foreign policy has contributed to this in some way. And I don't think our foreign policy is so bad that someone should fly a plane into our building. That's not how you solve a problem. I just don't like us taking it out on a country that had nothing to do with it. I'm a big believer in people being held accountable for their own actions. Which is one of the reasons I have a lot of issues with Bush. The flip-side is I don't believe in scapegoating. And since my tax dollars are being used, I'm gonna bitch about it. And you do the same, albeit from another direction. It is more important to take part in the politcal process than be all apethetic and go whaaa. Those people can sit down and shut-up as far as I'm concerned. If your not trying to help, you ain't got nutin' to say.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Well, thank you for at least acknowledging that on some level our foreign policy has contributed to this in some way. And I don't think our foreign policy is so bad that someone should fly a plane into our building. That's not how you solve a problem. I just don't like us taking it out on a country that had nothing to do with it. I'm a big believer in people being held accountable for their own actions. Which is one of the reasons I have a lot of issues with Bush. The flip-side is I don't believe in scapegoating. And since my tax dollars are being used, I'm gonna bitch about it. And you do the same, albeit from another direction. It is more important to take part in the politcal process than be all apethetic and go whaaa. Those people can sit down and shut-up as far as I'm concerned. If your not trying to help, you ain't got nutin' to say.

Damm--------- We agree... I'm at a lost for words...lol

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Calm2Chaos
Damm--------- We agree... I'm at a lost for words...lol

Give it time and you won't be.

 

[oldreliable67]

Well, thank you for at least acknowledging that on some level our foreign policy has contributed to this in some way. And I don't think our foreign policy is so bad that someone should fly a plane into our building. That's not how you solve a problem. I just don't like us taking it out on a country that had nothing to do with it. I'm a big believer in people being held accountable for their own actions. Which is one of the reasons I have a lot of issues with Bush. The flip-side is I don't believe in scapegoating. And since my tax dollars are being used, I'm gonna bitch about it. And you do the same, albeit from another direction. It is more important to take part in the politcal process than be all apethetic and go whaaa. Those people can sit down and shut-up as far as I'm concerned. If your not trying to help, you ain't got nutin' to say.

Thats more like it. Less vitriol, more reason. Good on ya'. :cheers:

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by oldreliable67:
Thats more like it. Less vitriol, more reason. Good on ya'

I must be a sick individual, because I prefer to be attacked. That way its more fun to get my ya-ya's out. The weird thing is, I'm not even looking for agreement. I think it is OK to disagree. I think it is even healthy. I would hate to see a govenment where the majority was all lib's and dem's. I want it half and half, argueing all the way. It is the duty of each side to keep the other side on their toes and feet to the fire. That way "us", the citizens of the republic, will stop thinking this is a god-damn oligarchy. Which is what I think it is today.

 

[oldreliable67]

I think it is OK to disagree. I think it is even healthy.

Totally agree. But, disagreement doesn't have to mean invective or vitriol or hate.

It is the duty of each side to keep the other side on their toes and feet to the fire.

Totally agree. But not without pragmatism and objectivity. Simply hewing to a party line without cognizance of the best solution to a problem regardless of party affiliation creates more problems that it solves.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Totally agree. But not without pragmatism and objectivity. Simply hewing to a party line without cognizance of the best solution to a problem regardless of party affiliation creates more problems that it solves.

Yes! The issues get put on the back burner while both sides slanderize each other like children. So when a legitimate complaint surfaces, everyone on the defensive simply puts the "childish slander" label on it and calls it a day. It's like crying wolf, if you constantly nit-pick about little things, then your legitimate complaints will get thrown into the same category.

 

[RubberDucky]

Perhaps they don't feel that fighting a war to cover up a mistake is a really patriotic thing to do.

Have to highlight this post. This is EXACTLY the problem.

And since when is it unpatriotic to practice your democratic rights? Must we all be sheep?

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Have to highlight this post. This is EXACTLY the problem.

And since when is it unpatriotic to practice your democratic rights? Must we all be sheep?

NOPE... But actually having the balls to fight for something is patriotic. Complaining about everything and calling it your democratic duty or right is not. This country was built on the backs of soldiers not on the word of people practicing the democratic rights to complain. I have no problem whatsoever with peole thatr disagree with the way things are run. And they want to chnage them. Hell... Thats what this country is about. But it seems that the majority of these people want to do nothing but complain. There never seems anything they are actually willing to stand up and fight for to defend.... Maybe I just don't get it.

 

[Iriemon]

NOPE... But actually having the balls to fight for something is patriotic.

Depends upon what you are fighting for, doesn't it? Is patriotism always good? Weren't the nazis very patriotic?

Complaining about everything and calling it your democratic duty or right is not.

Objecting to what the Govt does is unpatriotic?

This country was built on the backs of soldiers not on the word of people practicing the democratic rights to complain.

Sparta?

I have no problem whatsoever with peole thatr disagree with the way things are run. And they want to chnage them. Hell... Thats what this country is about. But it seems that the majority of these people want to do nothing but complain. There never seems anything they are actually willing to stand up and fight for to defend.... Maybe I just don't get it.

Complaining is what the opposition does. Maybe you remember 2000, Bush and the Republicans were complaining about the economy, complaining about high taxes, complaining about the (momentary) surplus and how it was the people's money, complaining about the lack of honesty in the WH (LOL!), complaining about abortion, complaining about the gays who wanted to get married, complaining about misapplying US troops in nation building, complaining that oil prices were too high, complaining about the death tax, etc. etc. That is all they did, complain complain complain.

 

[oldreliable67]

Complaining is what the opposition does.

And it really doesn't matter who the "opposition" happens to be at the time. Partially repeating from a post on the 'Rove not to be indicted..." thread...

The picture is one of equal opportunity ankle-biting. The Repubs now occupy the big house, the white one. So, its now the Dems turn to bite ankles. The previous occupants were the recipients of Repub ankle-biting. All ankle-biting done with equal vigor and venom. It was their turn, now its your turn.

At various time in the past, there have been just as many scandals about one thing or another on one side of the aisle as the other. We could have a long and interesting thread on the motivations of those involved (money, power, "power corrupts...", etc), but its all been rehashed time and time again. Nothing new under the sun here.

Nonetheless, each generation thinks they have discovered something new. Each generation thinks the previous generation screwed things up. Each generation brings a new, sometimes messianic zeal to what they believe is the newly discovered crusade for righting previous injustices. Each generation eventually becomes the previous generation that the new generation thinks screwed things up. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Oops. Rambiling a bit. One last thought: Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment. Oh, and whatever happened to the Cisneros investigation?