• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What We Mean By "Anti-Military" and "Unpatriotic" (1 Viewer)

A

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Zarqawi was just killed yesterday by our military after doing some damn fine intelligence work and calling in an F-16. The kill is huge for morale, and strategically significant.

So naturally, Democrats have started trashing the accomplishment, lying about the troops and smearing Bush. One of the several liberals who couldn't contain their dismay with positive news for the military was Peter Stark (D) of California, who called the killing a "political stunt."

No reason to allege that, no basis, no facts, just hysteria and conspiracy theories...like I've said a hundred times on this site, that is all the left operates on. Democrats make assertions based on reprehensibly low standards of accuracy, evidence, and substance like this and sacrifice their credibility on a daily basis for it.

Then if conservatives allege that something must be done about a foreign threat or somebody like O'Reilly makes a minor misstatement like "Mexico's unemployment rate is 20%!"...liberals suddenly have a standard of proof that can't even be met in a court of law.

For the record, O'Reilly meant to say their POVERTY RATE is 20%-which it is. That little tidbit was one of the many pertinent pieces of information conveniently left out by liberals on this site who treat Move On rhetoric as gospel in their daily bipolar smear crusade against people who disagree with them-Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc.
 
1) There is no link to a source with the same title.

2) Just how does this qualify as "Breaking News?"

Perhaps the mods can move this to the appropriate forum.
 
No offense, dude, but you sight one liberal as an example to damn us all as un-patriotic. I actually agree with Bush on this one...this was a great thing that happened (ironic that something great is someone dying...but nonetheless) but that we have a lot of hard work left to do in Iraq and that this shouldn't make us think it is going to go any easier.

This should go in one of the categorical forums.
 
Moderator's Warning:

"Conservatives-are-better-than-liberals" post moved.
 
Another one of your f^cked up messages of hate and distaste for liberals aqua? You parade around conservatism as being factual and honest yet always seem to fail at making any credible sources.
A total liar.
 
Well I'm Republican and I gotta tell you I was upset that apparently our military isn't sophisticated enough to take out a creep without killing a child. That's pretty damn disappointing. I think we need to stop relying so heavily on bombing and start using special forces more. I think it lacks honor to kill a child by bombing the whole house when you're attempting to assassinate one man. We should be better than that. Does that make me anti-american or anti-military? Nope. But we can do better and there's no shame in admitting that.
 
talloulou said:
Well I'm Republican and I gotta tell you I was upset that apparently our military isn't sophisticated enough to take out a creep without killing a child. That's pretty damn disappointing. I think we need to stop relying so heavily on bombing and start using special forces more. I think it lacks honor to kill a child by bombing the whole house when you're attempting to assassinate one man. We should be better than that. Does that make me anti-american or anti-military? Nope. But we can do better and there's no shame in admitting that.
Click to expand...


I'm not attacking you personally talloulou

Jesus H f.ucking Christ people this is f.ucking war.
Maybe you people just don’t understand war in never nice, innocent people f.ucking die.
That’s the f.ucking rules. Maybe if they had more time they could have had a team in place, from what I’ve read they didn’t have the time..BUT
When you have a high value target like he was you take the ******* shot.

Its just as much his fault as it is ours the child was killed. He knew just being there endangered everyone around him. And don’t play the chit “well if it where your child”
Because if it was my house the motherf.ucker would have never stayed.
 
ShamMol said:
No offense, dude, but you sight one liberal as an example to damn us all as un-patriotic. I actually agree with Bush on this one...this was a great thing that happened (ironic that something great is someone dying...but nonetheless) but that we have a lot of hard work left to do in Iraq and that this shouldn't make us think it is going to go any easier.

This should go in one of the categorical forums.
Click to expand...
Birds of a feather flock together.
 
cherokee said:
I'm not attacking you personally talloulou

Jesus H f.ucking Christ people this is f.ucking war.
Maybe you people just don’t understand war in never nice, innocent people f.ucking die.
That’s the f.ucking rules. Maybe if they had more time they could have had a team in place, from what I’ve read they didn’t have the time..BUT
When you have a high value target like he was you take the ******* shot.

Its just as much his fault as it is ours the child was killed. He knew just being there endangered everyone around him. And don’t play the chit “well if it where your child”
Because if it was my house the motherf.ucker would have never stayed.
Click to expand...

I get and understand everything you're saying. But at the same time I think it's important to look at it from this perspective.....

Let's say there were human soldiers on the ground and let's say they were about to take out a most wanted terrorist but the creep grabbed a five year old girl and used her as a shield? Now would the soldier(s) shoot through the little girl and justify taking her life because it was worth it to get the creep? My whole point is that I think humans would lament over those situations more deeply whereas bombs are much easier to drop, less personal, and the little girl becomes collateral damage in a way that she might not have if it was soldiers on the ground..... Now perhaps I'm wrong and our human soldiers would have no problem shooting through the little girl to take down a most wanted terrorist. However if they wouldn't then how is that different from the bomb? Now obviously this is all assuming they knew who was in the house when they dropped the bomb. If they didn't know then it all becomes a moot point. But if they did know I think it's definitely an interesting and worthwhile debate to decide if that's something we should or shouldn't do.
 
talloulou said:
I get and understand everything you're saying. But at the same time I think it's important to look at it from this perspective.....

Let's say there were human soldiers on the ground and let's say they were about to take out a most wanted terrorist but the creep grabbed a five year old girl and used her as a shield? Now would the soldier(s) shoot through the little girl and justify taking her life because it was worth it to get the creep?
Click to expand...


If they don't shoot through the little girl more kids and other innocent people could die as a result of letting that terrorist go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom