Bush says Iraq will be "America's Golden Moment"

E-Z-B

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
Bush said that in 20 years time, when we look back, we will see the Iraq war as "America's Golden Moment."

At the Naval Academy graduation today, Bush made the following comments:

"ANNAPOLIS, Md. — The U.S. military is on the offensive in the War on Terror (search) to prevent terrorists from reaching America's shores, President Bush said Friday, adding that 20 years from now, historians will look back on the Iraq war as "America's golden moment."

"We are taking the fight to the enemy abroad so we do not have to face them here at home," Bush said in addressing the 2005 U.S. Naval Academy graduates."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157853,00.html

Just like how 30 years later, Vietnam is another "Golden Moment" for America. :roll:

Maybe he really meant "America's Golden Shower"....
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Bush said that in 20 years time, when we look back, we will see the Iraq war as "America's Golden Moment."

At the Naval Academy graduation today, Bush made the following comments:

"ANNAPOLIS, Md. — The U.S. military is on the offensive in the War on Terror (search) to prevent terrorists from reaching America's shores, President Bush said Friday, adding that 20 years from now, historians will look back on the Iraq war as "America's golden moment."

"We are taking the fight to the enemy abroad so we do not have to face them here at home," Bush said in addressing the 2005 U.S. Naval Academy graduates."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157853,00.html

Just like how 30 years later, Vietnam is another "Golden Moment" for America. :roll:

Maybe he really meant "America's Golden Shower"....[/QUOTE]

Hardly a golden moment, but it was hardly a smudge. The campaign in the beginning was genius, but deteriorated from there. And I'm not going into a tactical argument.
 
[quote name='Tiphireth']Hardly a golden moment, but it was hardly a smudge. The campaign in the beginning was genius, but deteriorated from there. And I'm not going into a tactical argument.[/QUOTE]

Could you explain which part was genius and when did everything started going wrong?
 
[quote name='mookiemeister']Could you explain which part was genius and when did everything started going wrong?[/QUOTE]

Fool, I said I didn't want to get into it. But fuck you, so here's my thoughts.

- The tactical bombings in the beginning kept troops out of lethal urban fighting, and pounded the shit out of the terrorists (not "insurgents", FoxNews), but once we hit the ground in places like the Sunni triangle and Fallujah, it was a major fuckup. We should have given them a three day notice in Arabic, and then bombed the crap out of the cities.

The fact that dipshits like Ed Kennedy call this "Bush's Vietnam" are just looking for another way to give Bush the shaft. Soldiers aren't dying by the hundreds each day, there's no draft, ect. It is similiar in the way that we're fighting a cowardly, faceless enemy, and that my opinion is that we just triple the force, kill as many terrorists as possible, and get out. Don't let the soldiers who died die in vain, but I'd rather not have many more killed by limp-dicked jihadists with IEDs.

Oh, and let the "bigot" and "racist" labels come, it's what you leftists are good at.
 
[quote name='Tiphireth']Fool, I said I didn't want to get into it. But fuck you, so here's my thoughts.

- The tactical bombings in the beginning kept troops out of lethal urban fighting, and pounded the shit out of the terrorists (not "insurgents", FoxNews), but once we hit the ground in places like the Sunni triangle and Fallujah, it was a major fuckup. We should have given them a three day notice in Arabic, and then bombed the crap out of the cities.

The fact that dipshits like Ed Kennedy call this "Bush's Vietnam" are just looking for another way to give Bush the shaft. Soldiers aren't dying by the hundreds each day, there's no draft, ect. It is similiar in the way that we're fighting a cowardly, faceless enemy, and that my opinion is that we just triple the force, kill as many terrorists as possible, and get out. Don't let the soldiers who died die in vain, but I'd rather not have many more killed by limp-dicked jihadists with IEDs.

Oh, and let the "bigot" and "racist" labels come, it's what you leftists are good at.[/QUOTE]

Do u honestly think they are just goin to face us head on, they would be massacred. Guerilla war fare is best for when you are a lesser military threat. Just like we did in the revolutionary war. Its the only strategy they have, I am not defending it, I am purely looking at it through a purely militaristic point of view. There is a draft going on right now, they put freezes on the soldiers retiring, they make people go on more that one tour of duty. While all those freaking idiot right wing hawks sit back in America and hardly care when they should be the real people fighting the war. Our government is keeping the people out of the war. Imagine if they see all the caskets coming home on airplanes or wounded in a hospital they would be pissed off but shit like that is hidden.
We are horrible at occupyin countries and starting new governments for them for referrences check Central AMerica. THis is a lose lose situation. Are president is more interested on keeping a feeding tube inside a dead woman than saving the sons and daughters of America who are still alive. WHere is the ourage where is the media. Who the fuck cares about Michael Jackson or a runaway bride, I care about people dying and friends who are overseas. We need to stop all this damn apathy and get proactive because this government we have right now with republicans and democrats is failing America.
 
Golden Moment, eh?

It takes an amazing display of ignorance to call the war in Iraq a "golden moment" considering the following:

(1) That Iraq is not the heart of global anti-American terrorism;
(2) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11;
(3) That our government has appropriated 2000% (not a typo) more to fund this war than Paul Wolfowitz claimed it would cost;
(4) The Downing Street memo serves as irrefutable proof that the reasons for going into Iraq were actively fabricated before the case was brought to the public;
(5) The accusations of religious abuse in Guantanamo Bay;
(6) The lack of charges brought up against the people held in Guantanamo Bay;
(7) The overt proof of religious abuse, sexual abuse, humiliation, intimidation at Abu Ghraib.
(8) Photographic proof of our troops smiling - fuckING SMILING - over the dead body of a person being held there;
(9) A military campaing being enacted with no strategy being developed beforehand on an exit strategy;
(10) Forcing our "all volunteer army" to serve terms longer than they were contractually obligated to;
(11) Nobody taking responsibility in our government for the lack of properly armored soldiers and vehicles, despite #3 above;
(12) $8.8 billion missing from the money used to fund various facets of the war;
(13) Our government blamed an uncertain news source for 16 deaths and numerous injuries in Afghani riots, yet no one, save George Tenet, took the fall for the implausibly poor intelligence our government claims to have had before 9/11;
(14) The rotation of reasons for going into Iraq; WMDs, the ouster of Saddam, to protect the women and children, to install a democratic government;
(15) That our military knowingly lied about the death of a well-known solider in Afghanistan in order to boost enlistment;

I'm fucking tired at this point - add your own, but here is the most important one:

(16) That, as a nation, we were united with each other, regardless of ideology, religion, race, sex, or stock portfolio. For one all-too-brief moment, we were blissfully unaware of the differences that make us want to strangle other people on a daily basis; filled with an intense vulnerability, uncertainty about how to proceed, an intense desire to want to do something - anything - to help, and an abundance of personal stories and tragedies that reminded us all of our own mortalities, "E Pluribus Unum" was a most appropriate phrase. Furthermore, we had the sympathy (and empathy) of the majority of the world; they wanted to make sure that we (and they) could do something, anything, to make sure this didn't happen again.

Every last bit of that is gone, save for some automobile magnets declaring we "support our troops." In terms of our plans to fight terrorism, we are the laughing stock of all but the few countries who still have troops with us in Iraq. We are a nation bitterly, bitterly, bitterly divided by political party lines. Our leadership has squandered every opportunity to enact policy to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities; the number of terrorist attacks tripled from around 173 in 2003 to around 650 in 2004. We're stuck in Iraq with a government that could fall apart at any moment if the circumstances head in that direction. We've not found Osama bin Laden, and the biggest victory that we can claim is that we might have wounded Abu Musab Al Zaquari. Military recruitment is impossible to fulfill to quota now, almost ensuring that a draft will happen. Most importantly, our administration has shown no evidence that it believes it has done a single thing wrong, and continues to make the United States a laughingstock throughout the world.

How do you think people would react if you approached them in late September 2001 and said, "In 3 years, the world will view the United States as a laughingstock, a country of buffoons, an enemy of human rights, as liars, while increasing the number of terrorist attacks that happen?"

How did we squander that, and how can you people who continue to support the administration continue to ignore the sheer volume of evidence that we are participating in the very antithesis of a "golden moment?"

As GG Allin would have said, "Eat my fuck."

myke.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']Do u honestly think they are just goin to face us head on, they would be massacred. Guerilla war fare is best for when you are a lesser military threat. Just like we did in the revolutionary war. Its the only strategy they have, I am not defending it, I am purely looking at it through a purely militaristic point of view. There is a draft going on right now, they put freezes on the soldiers retiring, they make people go on more that one tour of duty. While all those freaking idiot right wing hawks sit back in America and hardly care when they should be the real people fighting the war. Our government is keeping the people out of the war. Imagine if they see all the caskets coming home on airplanes or wounded in a hospital they would be pissed off but shit like that is hidden.
We are horrible at occupyin countries and starting new governments for them for referrences check Central AMerica. THis is a lose lose situation. Are president is more interested on keeping a feeding tube inside a dead woman than saving the sons and daughters of America who are still alive. WHere is the ourage where is the media. Who the fuck cares about Michael Jackson or a runaway bride, I care about people dying and friends who are overseas. We need to stop all this damn apathy and get proactive because this government we have right now with republicans and democrats is failing America.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, and the guerilla warfare is what's killing our troops right now. THey know that we can't root through every place we want, and they use that to advantage.

I meant a massive draft, like the one in the seventies.

I'm not 18. I can't sign up yet, fool.

Yeah, and look how that turned out. Actually, you didn't hear much from Bush.

The media is crap, everyone knows that. I agree with you 100% on that one. You seem to want forward news, so you might want to try Michaelsavage.com. He's right-wing, but he has the news that Fox/Cnn/Nbc won't show.


Dig my new color-coded replies! :)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Golden Moment, eh?

It takes an amazing display of ignorance to call the war in Iraq a "golden moment" considering the following:

(1) That Iraq is not the heart of global anti-American terrorism;
(2) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11;
(3) That our government has appropriated 2000% (not a typo) more to fund this war than Paul Wolfowitz claimed it would cost;
(4) The Downing Street memo serves as irrefutable proof that the reasons for going into Iraq were actively fabricated before the case was brought to the public;
(5) The accusations of religious abuse in Guantanamo Bay;
(6) The lack of charges brought up against the people held in Guantanamo Bay;
(7) The overt proof of religious abuse, sexual abuse, humiliation, intimidation at Abu Ghraib.
(8) Photographic proof of our troops smiling - fuckING SMILING - over the dead body of a person being held there;
(9) A military campaing being enacted with no strategy being developed beforehand on an exit strategy;
(10) Forcing our "all volunteer army" to serve terms longer than they were contractually obligated to;
(11) Nobody taking responsibility in our government for the lack of properly armored soldiers and vehicles, despite #3 above;
(12) $8.8 billion missing from the money used to fund various facets of the war;
(13) Our government blamed an uncertain news source for 16 deaths and numerous injuries in Afghani riots, yet no one, save George Tenet, took the fall for the implausibly poor intelligence our government claims to have had before 9/11;
(14) The rotation of reasons for going into Iraq; WMDs, the ouster of Saddam, to protect the women and children, to install a democratic government;
(15) That our military knowingly lied about the death of a well-known solider in Afghanistan in order to boost enlistment;

I'm fucking tired at this point - add your own, but here is the most important one:

(16) That, as a nation, we were united with each other, regardless of ideology, religion, race, sex, or stock portfolio. For one all-too-brief moment, we were blissfully unaware of the differences that make us want to strangle other people on a daily basis; filled with an intense vulnerability, uncertainty about how to proceed, an intense desire to want to do something - anything - to help, and an abundance of personal stories and tragedies that reminded us all of our own mortalities, "E Pluribus Unum" was a most appropriate phrase. Furthermore, we had the sympathy (and empathy) of the majority of the world; they wanted to make sure that we (and they) could do something, anything, to make sure this didn't happen again.

Every last bit of that is gone, save for some automobile magnets declaring we "support our troops." In terms of our plans to fight terrorism, we are the laughing stock of all but the few countries who still have troops with us in Iraq. We are a nation bitterly, bitterly, bitterly divided by political party lines. Our leadership has squandered every opportunity to enact policy to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities; the number of terrorist attacks tripled from around 173 in 2003 to around 650 in 2004. We're stuck in Iraq with a government that could fall apart at any moment if the circumstances head in that direction. We've not found Osama bin Laden, and the biggest victory that we can claim is that we might have wounded Abu Musab Al Zaquari. Military recruitment is impossible to fulfill to quota now, almost ensuring that a draft will happen. Most importantly, our administration has shown no evidence that it believes it has done a single thing wrong, and continues to make the United States a laughingstock throughout the world.

How do you think people would react if you approached them in late September 2001 and said, "In 3 years, the world will view the United States as a laughingstock, a country of buffoons, an enemy of human rights, as liars, while increasing the number of terrorist attacks that happen?"

How did we squander that, and how can you people who continue to support the administration continue to ignore the sheer volume of evidence that we are participating in the very antithesis of a "golden moment?"

As GG Allin would have said, "Eat my fuck."

myke.[/QUOTE]

:applause: Bra-fucking-vo
 
[quote name='Tiphireth']- The tactical bombings in the beginning kept troops out of lethal urban fighting, and pounded the shit out of the terrorists (not "insurgents", FoxNews), but once we hit the ground in places like the Sunni triangle and Fallujah, it was a major fuckup. We should have given them a three day notice in Arabic, and then bombed the crap out of the cities.[/QUOTE]

The "tactical bombings"? So the bombings of Power Plants, and Water treatment plants to keep civillians from having electricity and sanitary water are considered "tactical"? The Fallujah assault siege was a massacre. Soldiers going into houses, taking any males that were 16 or older out in front of their house, beating them, and continuing onto the next (civillians were obviously killed too).

And giving a three day notice to leave town? If a soldier from another country that you were at war with came to your house one day and told you to get your whole life together and leave town in three days or else be killed by bombings..yeah right, I'm sure you'd really be happy about that. Then what would be the point of bombing the cities? Just to destroy people's houses?

[quote name='Tiphireth']The fact that dipshits like Ed Kennedy call this "Bush's Vietnam" are just looking for another way to give Bush the shaft. Soldiers aren't dying by the hundreds each day, there's no draft, ect. It is similiar in the way that we're fighting a cowardly, faceless enemy, and that my opinion is that we just triple the force, kill as many terrorists as possible, and get out. Don't let the soldiers who died die in vain, but I'd rather not have many more killed by limp-dicked jihadists with IEDs.[/QUOTE]

What exactly do you classify as a "terrorist"? You seem to be throwing the word around without actually knowing what you are talking about. Are people that fight American soldiers considered terrorists? You have to remember, the US soldiers are in a foreign country killing its people, so wouldnt it seem that the soldiers are the terrorist there? I may get flames from what I just said but its the truth. And you call them cowardly? They have the smaller force, are fighting for their country, and dont have tanks, planes and things like that we have, so they end up giving their lives (suicide bombers). I find this really sad that they must do this. And you can blame Bush for the soldiers getting killed, he's the one that had them sent over, the Iraqi's didnt ask for it nor want it. I feel that any soldier that dies there has died in vain since its an unneeded war from our dumbass president.


Americas golden moment...yeah right.
 
You know, when you act like a Cartman competing in the special olympics the retards are STILL better than you. Just how does that make you feel?

(1) That Iraq is not the heart of global anti-American terrorism.
I never believed this to be the case.

(2) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
See #1.

(3) That our government has appropriated 2000% (not a typo) more to fund this war than Paul Wolfowitz claimed it would cost
So now you are just complaining about the cost? That's it?

(4) The Downing Street memo serves as irrefutable proof that the reasons for going into Iraq were actively fabricated before the case was brought to the public;
Is this the left's new rally cry? Wait, oh, that happened in Britain, are we Britain? Is our head of state living at Downing Street? No?

Next.

(5) The accusations of religious abuse in Guantanamo Bay;
Accusations don't equal proof.

You are aware of Al Qaeda training their members to make outlandish accusations against their would be captors? You are aware that they're trained to sucker the press, liberals ie.... you, and the Muslim world?

Now, what do you think would happen to an American Jewish soldier if he were captured by Al Qaeda. Do you think they'd get him a Rabbi? Provide him kosher meals? Perhaps they'd bring him a yarmakule so he could pray on his Sabbath? Or do you think they'd just cut off his head.

Comapre this to the fact that detainees at Guantanamo have Iman, were all provided personal copies of the Koran, which most Muslims don't even have, they are allowed to pray 5 times a day in an organized fashion as dictated by their faith, they have specially prepared halal meals and are provided prayer rugs. All at taxpayers expense.

Now, what was this about religious abuse again?

Tard.

(6) The lack of charges brought up against the people held in Guantanamo Bay; Just out of curiosity, if the Koran flushing was true, hard to believe when these prisoners have tubes to piss in and holes in the ground to crap in... not flushing toilets but hey, I digress, why let facts get in the way. What are you going to charge someone with under U.S. law or the UCMJ that may or may not have put a book in the toilet?

(7) The overt proof of religious abuse, sexual abuse, humiliation, intimidation at Abu Ghraib.
Do you have any outrage at the 680 Iraqi's that have been murdered by foreign and Sunni insurgents since April 28th? How about the western hostages beheaded? The Koreans? How about the 12 Nepalese that were killed execution style, you know, those bloodthirsty, militaristic, imperialistic Nepalese? Do you share any outrage at the systematic attack on Iraqi police and national guardsment attempting to safeguard school, restaurants and residential neighborhoods?

Or is your outrage just directed at ill trained Army MP reservists from rural America who were not following in any way, shape or form standing orders.

Just curious.

(8) Photographic proof of our troops smiling - fuckING SMILING - over the dead body of a person being held there;
Crime? Charge?

Guess you wouldn't have liked to see unit poses in Gulf War I in front of burned out Iraqi tanks. OMG! They smiled becuase they won!!!

Sounds like you'd prefer smiling militants firing their AK-47's in the air after downing an American helicopter.

Wait, you're not telling us that's the case..... is it?

(9) A military campaing being enacted with no strategy being developed beforehand on an exit strategy;
First rule of combat. Initial contact with the enemy completely invalidates all existing plans.

Of course though, military "types" like you (Clueless civillians.) know far better how to run a military campaign and occupation than an organization that has been doing it on and off since 1865.

(10) Forcing our "all volunteer army" to serve terms longer than they were contractually obligated to;
Incorrect. Not one contract has been broken.

Soldiers are not being held for 28 months if their service contract is 24 months. Tours of duty are being extended but contracts are not being broken.

(11) Nobody taking responsibility in our government for the lack of properly armored soldiers and vehicles, despite #3 above;
You cannot armor every vehicle. It's simply impossible. Ditto every soldier.

It's an ugly business, people die, equipment gets destroyed. That's what the military and military operations are designed to do; kill people and break things.

12) $8.8 billion missing from the money used to fund various facets of the war; Do you share any outrage, just a shred, at the estimated $150-200 billion in fraud and waste in Medicaid/Medicare and SSI?

Or do you just care about money that may have gone to Halliburton.

(13) Our government blamed an uncertain news source for 16 deaths and numerous injuries in Afghani riots, yet no one, save George Tenet, took the fall for the implausibly poor intelligence our government claims to have had before 9/11;
So, would you like to put the blame on 9/11 on the Clinton CIA, FBI and NSA? I mean the attacks were in the planning stages for three years, Bush was President for 8 months. Are you going to spread out the blame or just assign it to the person in charge the day of the attack.

(14) The rotation of reasons for going into Iraq; WMDs, the ouster of Saddam, to protect the women and children, to install a democratic government;
Above all else, Iraq was in violation of 14 UN agreements and the ceasefire that ended the first Gulf War. Any other reason or validation is irrelevent compared to the fact that this invasion was legally nothing more than an extension of a previous war whose cease fire was not being honored by the losing side.

(15) That our military knowingly lied about the death of a well-known solider in Afghanistan in order to boost enlistment;
The death of Pat Tillman was in fact a coverup, at the unit level. The unit didn't want to embarass themselves for the blue on blue death. Once you got people above the rank of lieutenant, above the platoon level, there was no coverup.

The Rangers made a mistake at the 36-40 man unit level in trying to obscure the truth. That's much different than it being directed from the battalion, brigade, division or corps level. It's no different than an individual store trying to cover up a shoplifting incident where a person was beaten by employees as opposed to the district covering it up or a coporation.

Sounds to me like you have a lot of personal angst that your side tried all this 6 months ago and.... you still lost the elections in a stunning fashion. I recommend taking a break from hating America and its leadership for a while, it really has made you delusional.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']

(8) Photographic proof of our troops smiling - fuckING SMILING - over the dead body of a person being held there;
Crime? Charge?

Guess you wouldn't have liked to see unit poses in Gulf War I in front of burned out Iraqi tanks. OMG! They smiled becuase they won!!!

Sounds like you'd prefer smiling militants firing their AK-47's in the air after downing an American helicopter.

Wait, you're not telling us that's the case..... is it?
[/QUOTE]

If you don't see a problem with those photos, you are sick. Comparing a burned out tank to a human being our soldiers tortured is absurd. I seriously hope you don't mean that.
 
[quote name='whoknows']The "tactical bombings"? So the bombings of Power Plants, and Water treatment plants to keep civillians from having electricity and sanitary water are considered "tactical"? The Fallujah assault siege was a massacre. Soldiers going into houses, taking any males that were 16 or older out in front of their house, beating them, and continuing onto the next (civillians were obviously killed too).

And giving a three day notice to leave town? If a soldier from another country that you were at war with came to your house one day and told you to get your whole life together and leave town in three days or else be killed by bombings..yeah right, I'm sure you'd really be happy about that. Then what would be the point of bombing the cities? Just to destroy people's houses?



What exactly do you classify as a "terrorist"? You seem to be throwing the word around without actually knowing what you are talking about. Are people that fight American soldiers considered terrorists? You have to remember, the US soldiers are in a foreign country killing its people, so wouldnt it seem that the soldiers are the terrorist there? I may get flames from what I just said but its the truth. And you call them cowardly? They have the smaller force, are fighting for their country, and dont have tanks, planes and things like that we have, so they end up giving their lives (suicide bombers). I find this really sad that they must do this. And you can blame Bush for the soldiers getting killed, he's the one that had them sent over, the Iraqi's didnt ask for it nor want it. I feel that any soldier that dies there has died in vain since its an unneeded war from our dumbass president.


Americas golden moment...yeah right.[/QUOTE]

Sayeth the dictionary:
Terrorist

adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

Chanting "Allah ackbar" when you struggle to slice of someone's head isn't exactly the best way to go about protesting a new form of government. Not only is it IEDs in Iraq, but it was the nail bombs in Palestine and Israel.

These people lost power when we ousted that pig Saddam. Remember Knierim's theorem, "Rarely to people give up power willingly"? The people under Saddam could rape, torture, kill how they wanted. They gassed millions of Kurds, and we're still uncovering the mass graves filled with people who protested Saddam.
These people are not "Minutemen" like that douch of a leftist posterboy Michael Moore wants you to think. If they cared about their homeland, they wouldn't be murdering their own people, like the police officers and civilians who are often killed on the street. I'd say the jihadists are the terrorists.

And yes, those would be tactical bombings. You should know at least some rules of war, it's always the first order to remove supplies from anyone who could be the enemy.

And if someone told me that there was a threat to America's security in Fort Collins, I woul dbe oh-so pissed about it, but I would move out as required. I might be lazy and pessimistic, but I would do it. Were I japanese during WWII, I would have moved out to the camps, and done it without ill feelings like many of the japanese did, because they knew it was what they had to do. It wasn't right how people treated them, but they dealt with it anyway.
 
[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']If you don't see a problem with those photos, you are sick. Comparing a burned out tank to a human being our soldiers tortured is absurd. I seriously hope you don't mean that.[/QUOTE]

You do realize that when tanks are destroyed in combat they have 3-5 people in them, depending on the model? That those burned out tanks also have burned beyond recognition crew members as well?
 
[quote name='Tiphireth']Sayeth the dictionary:
Terrorist

adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities[/QUOTE]

Wow, that defines Bush and what he is doing in Iraq very well, thanks for pointing that out.

[quote name='Tiphireth']These people lost power when we ousted that pig Saddam. Remember Knierim's theorem, "Rarely to people give up power willingly"? The people under Saddam could rape, torture, kill how they wanted. They gassed millions of Kurds, and we're still uncovering the mass graves filled with people who protested Saddam.
These people are not "Minutemen" like that douch of a leftist posterboy Michael Moore wants you to think. If they cared about their homeland, they wouldn't be murdering their own people, like the police officers and civilians who are often killed on the street. I'd say the jihadists are the terrorists.[/QUOTE]

Yes, rarely do people give up power willinly, as in America is attacking many arab countries because since they are arab they must have something to do with 9/11 and must be terrorists :roll:
And now the US soldiers are raping and killing. Now the US is killing thousands and thousands of Iraqi civillians, and most of them innocent. And the US isnt doing any better there. Recently on an International News station they showed US soldiers that attacked 2 cars that had a family in them. One of the cars all the people were killed instantly, and then in the other car one girl was seen to be moving, and when bystanders tried to help they were shot by US soldiers. I will see if I can find it on the internet somehow, but believe me or not it happened, accept it or not, it happened, flame me or not it happened and none of that will change anything.

[quote name='Tiphireth']And if someone told me that there was a threat to America's security in Fort Collins, I woul dbe oh-so pissed about it, but I would move out as required. I might be lazy and pessimistic, but I would do it. Were I japanese during WWII, I would have moved out to the camps, and done it without ill feelings like many of the japanese did, because they knew it was what they had to do. It wasn't right how people treated them, but they dealt with it anyway.[/QUOTE]

Not just anyone, a soldier from the country that America is at war against assuming they occupied parts of the US. I dont care if it could happen or not so dont say it wont, just assume that happened, then how would you feel?


And just something interesting for anyone to look at.

Go look at the 14 points of Fascism and compare it to what is going on these days with America.

Sad, but Interesting to say the least.
 
[quote name='whoknows']Wow, that defines Bush and what he is doing in Iraq very well, thanks for pointing that out.

Chanting "Allah ackbar" when you struggle to slice of someone's head isn't exactly the best way to go about protesting a new form of government. Not only is it IEDs in Iraq, but it was the nail bombs in Palestine and Israel.



Yes, rarely do people give up power willinly, as in America is attacking many arab countries because since they are arab they must have something to do with 9/11 and must be terrorists :roll:
And now the US soldiers are raping and killing. Now the US is killing thousands and thousands of Iraqi civillians, and most of them innocent. And the US isnt doing any better there. Recently on an International News station they showed US soldiers that attacked 2 cars that had a family in them. One of the cars all the people were killed instantly, and then in the other car one girl was seen to be moving, and when bystanders tried to help they were shot by US soldiers. I will see if I can find it on the internet somehow, but believe me or not it happened, accept it or not, it happened, flame me or not it happened and none of that will change anything.



Not just anyone, a soldier from the country that America is at war against assuming they occupied parts of the US. I dont care if it could happen or not so dont say it wont, just assume that happened, then how would you feel?


And just something interesting for anyone to look at.

Go look at the 14 points of Fascism and compare it to what is going on these days with America.

Sad, but Interesting to say the least.[/QUOTE]

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

Okay, that's a crock- "Oh my God, he has a flag on his car! Fascist!" Having faith in your country isn't Facsism. Nationlism, yes, but the extremists are a definite minority.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights -
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

Patriot Act, yes. This I don't agree with, but if they have probable cause, and determine that the suspected are indeed guilty, put 'em away, or whatever.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause -
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

These "14 points of facism" are quite one-sided. No need to respond to this one.
4. Supremacy of the Military -
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

That is sort of what you do during war.

5. Rampant Sexism -
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homo-sexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

Again, the one-sidedness of this ridiculous document shows through. Condi Rice, Sandra O'Connor have so little power, it's sexist beyond beliefe.

6. Controlled Mass Media -
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

Right, CNN, NBC, CBS and Fox are sooo controlled by the government. If that were the case, it'd be golfing 24/7. (Just a little humor, this is getting heated.)

7. Obsession with National Security -
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

Like Bowling For Columbine! Guns are bad! Although I assume the feds didn't influence M. Moore (they might have paid for his dinners and speaking arrangements for the next three years, though), there is a definite threat of certain extremists. Throat cutting ones. Everyone should see the videos of the beheadings. I about vomited.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined -
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

We've been debating this in other topics. Again, it mearly sounds like the author of these points is pushing his own agenda, which is partially against religion. Right, when has the Church condemmed Bush for the invasion?

9. Corporate Power is Protected -
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

Enron comes to mind. As does Halliburton, which I love.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed -
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

I have never liked Union parties. Very few are for realistic reforms of the workplace, most are just a group of pissed off hippies/metrosexual losers who want a salary when they don't deserve it. The only time there was a need for Unions was when The Jungle came out or when the building ull of women caught fire and collapsed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

Yes, Hitler sure hated art. He did hate books, though. Most of our professors today are numbskulls who teach academically challenging classes such as "The history of rock and roll". Now there's a class for everyone. They encourage open sexuality and deviant behaviour.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment -
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

Limitless power to enforce laws? Like in several threads when we learn that although everyone knows that 80% of the workers at a restauraunt are illegal, the cops come in only for a bite? This stuid point is just a troll for flames. If you commit a crime, you do the goddamned time. National police force, eh? Like Rainbow Six, those horrible bastards. Killing facist italians like that.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

Our government has always been a close knitting of friends, and it's hardly corrupt. John Kennedy almost never did anything without Robert's concession. Hell, when Reganm was on the hospital, he joked to the surgeons "I hope you guys are Republicans". Oooh, he must be corrupt like hell.

14. Fraudulent Elections -
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Haha. I love this B.S. Assassinations, like JFK, and the attempts on Nixon, and Regan? Smear campaigns are have always occured. The Swift boats with Kerry, and locally, Ken Matsunaka's group tried to smear Marilyn Musgrave. It's just a part of elections. Not that it's good. "Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections". Like the filibuster. Or other times when ACLU appointed judges overturn the vote of the people, which I can't be arsed to find at the moment.

(http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/t-28495_14_Points_of_Fascism.html)

Oh, the14 Points of Fascism are certainly an applicable source of information regarding the political structure of any country. It just looks like this fuckwad took what he didn't like about America and decided to call it all "Fascism". This list is bullshit. PAD, I'd like you to dissect it too, please. You're better at this than I am.

And thus, Tip goes to sleep.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You do realize that when tanks are destroyed in combat they have 3-5 people in them, depending on the model? That those burned out tanks also have burned beyond recognition crew members as well?[/QUOTE]

You do realize that the crew of the tank was not necessarily in the tank when it was destroyed?
 
Even if there were dead people in the tank, there's a difference between celebrating winning a life-and-death battle between military forces, and celebrating over the corpse of a helpless prisoner you've tortured to death.
 
[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']You do realize that the crew of the tank was not necessarily in the tank when it was destroyed?[/QUOTE]

Can you prove they weren't?
 
[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']You do realize that the crew of the tank was not necessarily in the tank when it was destroyed?[/QUOTE]

I suppose that's possible, though unlikely.
 
[quote name='Tiphireth']Dig my new color-coded replies! :)[/QUOTE]

You must be America's only gay male Republican (who is out of the closet...)


you_win_the_prize.jpg
 
[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']You do realize that the crew of the tank was not necessarily in the tank when it was destroyed?[/QUOTE]

I can tell you about 700+ that were occupied that we destroyed with crews intact during the ground war. This doesn't include APC's, BRDM's, trucks, cars and the like that were destroyed by Abrams, Bradleys, Cobras, Apaches, A-10's, F/A-18's and weapons systems of Britain, France, Saudi Arabia etc.

In all probably 200,000+ Iraqi's were killed by coalition forces. The only tanks without crew members were killed during the air war. Once the ground war began their crews were burned alive, many times from their own armor being liquified into molten metal. You throw in personnel destroyed on the road to Basra at the end of the war on the "highway of death" and you're easily looking at that number of dead.
 
In order to save people the trouble of another unecessarily long post, I will refer to the numbers of point I brough up, and instead, respond to PAD's responses; Inconvenient, sure. But you don't want to have to see another post *that* long, do ya?

(1 and 2) First, I don't believe you, but that's not exactly a debatable point; second, what you think does not reflect what the data show. Surveys less than a year ago show that a large majority (a "supermajority" in modern terms) believe both #1 and #2 to be true (do a search at the Pew Research website). My point was that it is appalling that our administration has done little to differentiate between the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and the war on terror. Ask the average person, they think it's all related.

(3) If that were the only thing I were complaining about, we wouldn't be using numbers, sweetheart.

(4) It's unfortunate that you want to make arguments about the DSM's irrelevance, but clearly have not read it; he's a free sample:
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
Click to expand...

(5) I'm glad to see the old "since the terrorists lop people's heads off, it's ok for us to do this" argument. It's been awhile. So are we terrorists, or are we better? Clearly the latter; how dare you suggest that our behavior is on par with terrorists?

(6) I was referring to the detainees, not the people accused of abuse;

(7 and 8) You made a post a few weeks ago about how thrilled you were that your unit "sent 500 islamofacists to Allah." Thus, you have no valid opinion in this matter; war may be fought for the overall success, thus is it really necessary to revel in the deaths of other people? Some, perhaps (depending upon their terrorist organization elitism - the guys on the "playing cards," if you will). For you to fail to recognize just how vulgar this is, and how this helped reinforce how shitty we look to other countires, is appalling.

And give up the tired "you'd love to see the terrorists happy and winning" arguments, along with the "the terrorists love to see people die" arguments. They are tired, they are boring, they are incorrect, and they are empty hyperbole. It gets in the way of discourse. Subterfuge, if you will.

(9) That Dick Cheney thought we would be greeted with roses (Meet the Press) certainly validates your argument that initial contact changes everything; it also points out how poorly this war was planned from the beginning.

(10) Tell me what would happen to a solider who tried to leave at 24 months (end of contract) instead of 28 (extension); you're avoiding the obvious reality, that our soliders are being unwillingly kept longer than they want, for a semantic argument. Not kosher.

(11) We cannot armor everybody; however, they sure got their asses in gear once the media began questioning Rumsfeld about it; that, by itself, proves that less was being done than could have been done.

(12) The amount of money lost is almost 4.5 times the TOTAL amount we believed we would spend; what's insignificant about that? I'd like to see data on how the missing money you're discussing is estimated: have a link?

(13) I said only George Tenet took the fall, I didn't implicate anyone else. Hell, even Tenet was one of Clinton's guys. I'm saying that, if the intelligence was that bad (that is, 100% WRONG), then getting rid of George Tenet was a meaningless gesture to a much, much larger problem.

(14) I'm referring to the narratives used to justify the war to the public; this is explicitly related to the Downing Street Memo, since the leaders were aware that the public needed to be sold on this. Jesus Christ, don't you remember George Bush and Dick Cheney saying that "they don't want proof to come in the form of a mushroom cloud," and made other suggestions that Iraq was planning and capable of attacking us?

(15) You may be right; I'm very skeptical of that, and it remains a coverup regardless.

Thanks for ignoring the crux of my argument (#16, if you will); if you can't even respond to that, it's clear that you can't refute how incomprehensibly difficult it is to consider how our global image changed from post-9/11 to today, and how that is related to the courses of action that our government are taking.

myke.
...You can give up on the "you hate America" arguments, too; goddammit, Sean Hannity isn't as bad as you are.
 
Since you seem to think we should be so much better than the terrorists let me introduce this to you. Now, let me ask you, is it more moral to have people stand naked, wear panties on their heads in an effort into shaming them or this.

Do you think it's more moral to perhaps vandalize a book or this.

Are you going to say you'd rather have this happen to you or would you prefer to be lead around on a leash naked by a female MP.

If you're going to sit here and compare us, our military and our actions to that of terrorists I want you to be completely aware of what insurgents and terrorists are doing.

If you wish to completely invalidate my points of view because I referred to enemy soldiers I killed as Islamofascists, be my guest. It only makes you look small that you can't accept a point of view. Fact: Most Republican Guard officers and many troops were Ba'athists who are now killing civillians. Fact: Many Republican Guard members were Sunnis whose families received preferential treatment from Saddams government as a result of their military membership. Many of these families are now either funding, participating or sheltering terrorists killing more Iraqis than Americans. Hence, who knows how many terrorists and Islamofascists we killed when they were once mere soldiers. Remember, Hitler was a private in WW I, I feel much better now about my service than I did in 1991.

I was once under the impression that I was just saving the lives of my platoon and troop and the enemy happened to be fighting a war that he was trapped into by corrupt leadership. I now believe that the lives taken by U.S. forces in Desert Storm and the destruction of their military stores have saved thousands more lives today had we not fought and killed tens of thousands of Iraqi Republican Guard officers and forces.

Have a nice day.
 
Again, thanks for responding to #16, the crux of my argument. I appreciate the thought and time you gave to the matter.

I don't invalidate your points (other than #7 and 8) by quoting what you said. I also don't believe I implied that we should not kill anybody in war; it is both a byproduct and necessity. What is not necessary is to take delight in killing and death; what happened at Abu Ghraib is a disgrace to the military. You can link to any number of grotesque videos, and that doesn't change the point.

I expect the soldiers in our military, whose job it is to run and maintain the security of prisons and camps, to behave better than they do. This point is even more important if you consider that the United States, and no terrorist nation, is expected to serve as an example for how democratic countries with respect for people ought to behave.

The point of view that I can accept is duty, obligation, citizenship, and understanding. The point of view that I can not accept is one of demonization of others, accusations for all types of a people, and being thrilled - that a person is dead. I can understand, for instance, if Zarqawi were killed - he's a leader, and organizer, and a mobilizing symbol; on the other hand, to treat death so flippantly does not make us look like the country we consider ourselves to be.

myke.
 
Dumbass, we do behave better than them. We don't cut off their fucking heads. How fucking dumb are you? We pay for them to have religous leaders in prison, we give them Korans, we prepare them halal meals, we allow them organized prayer 5 times a day. What more to you want?

Click on those links and see how terrorists treat their prisoners then get back to me.

You are beyond dumb and not even worth debating.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Dumbass, we do behave better than them. We don't cut off their fucking heads. How fucking dumb are you? We pay for them to have religous leaders in prison, we give them Korans, we prepare them halal meals, we allow them organized prayer 5 times a day. What more to you want?

Click on those links and see how terrorists treat their prisoners then get back to me.

You are beyond dumb and not even worth debating.[/QUOTE]

Hmm. When losing a debate, resort to ad hominem attacks. Nice work there, sunshine. You win the debate trophy of this thread.

So, let me get this straight: because one group beheads people, it is okay for another group to abuse people?

Real classy of you to make the insurgents responsible for abuse. Don't even deny it; without beheadings, you'd have no excuse for the behavior that went on at Abu Ghraib. Way to blame the victim. Real classy.

myke.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You know, when you act like a Cartman competing in the special olympics the retards are STILL better than you. Just how does that make you feel?

(1) That Iraq is not the heart of global anti-American terrorism.
I never believed this to be the case.

(2) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
See #1.

(3) That our government has appropriated 2000% (not a typo) more to fund this war than Paul Wolfowitz claimed it would cost
So now you are just complaining about the cost? That's it?

(4) The Downing Street memo serves as irrefutable proof that the reasons for going into Iraq were actively fabricated before the case was brought to the public;
Is this the left's new rally cry? Wait, oh, that happened in Britain, are we Britain? Is our head of state living at Downing Street? No?

Next.

(5) The accusations of religious abuse in Guantanamo Bay;
Accusations don't equal proof.

You are aware of Al Qaeda training their members to make outlandish accusations against their would be captors? You are aware that they're trained to sucker the press, liberals ie.... you, and the Muslim world?

Now, what do you think would happen to an American Jewish soldier if he were captured by Al Qaeda. Do you think they'd get him a Rabbi? Provide him kosher meals? Perhaps they'd bring him a yarmakule so he could pray on his Sabbath? Or do you think they'd just cut off his head.

Comapre this to the fact that detainees at Guantanamo have Iman, were all provided personal copies of the Koran, which most Muslims don't even have, they are allowed to pray 5 times a day in an organized fashion as dictated by their faith, they have specially prepared halal meals and are provided prayer rugs. All at taxpayers expense.

Now, what was this about religious abuse again?

Tard.

(6) The lack of charges brought up against the people held in Guantanamo Bay; Just out of curiosity, if the Koran flushing was true, hard to believe when these prisoners have tubes to piss in and holes in the ground to crap in... not flushing toilets but hey, I digress, why let facts get in the way. What are you going to charge someone with under U.S. law or the UCMJ that may or may not have put a book in the toilet?

(7) The overt proof of religious abuse, sexual abuse, humiliation, intimidation at Abu Ghraib.
Do you have any outrage at the 680 Iraqi's that have been murdered by foreign and Sunni insurgents since April 28th? How about the western hostages beheaded? The Koreans? How about the 12 Nepalese that were killed execution style, you know, those bloodthirsty, militaristic, imperialistic Nepalese? Do you share any outrage at the systematic attack on Iraqi police and national guardsment attempting to safeguard school, restaurants and residential neighborhoods?

Or is your outrage just directed at ill trained Army MP reservists from rural America who were not following in any way, shape or form standing orders.

Just curious.

(8) Photographic proof of our troops smiling - fuckING SMILING - over the dead body of a person being held there;
Crime? Charge?

Guess you wouldn't have liked to see unit poses in Gulf War I in front of burned out Iraqi tanks. OMG! They smiled becuase they won!!!

Sounds like you'd prefer smiling militants firing their AK-47's in the air after downing an American helicopter.

Wait, you're not telling us that's the case..... is it?

(9) A military campaing being enacted with no strategy being developed beforehand on an exit strategy;
First rule of combat. Initial contact with the enemy completely invalidates all existing plans.

Of course though, military "types" like you (Clueless civillians.) know far better how to run a military campaign and occupation than an organization that has been doing it on and off since 1865.

(10) Forcing our "all volunteer army" to serve terms longer than they were contractually obligated to;
Incorrect. Not one contract has been broken.

Soldiers are not being held for 28 months if their service contract is 24 months. Tours of duty are being extended but contracts are not being broken.

(11) Nobody taking responsibility in our government for the lack of properly armored soldiers and vehicles, despite #3 above;
You cannot armor every vehicle. It's simply impossible. Ditto every soldier.

It's an ugly business, people die, equipment gets destroyed. That's what the military and military operations are designed to do; kill people and break things.

12) $8.8 billion missing from the money used to fund various facets of the war; Do you share any outrage, just a shred, at the estimated $150-200 billion in fraud and waste in Medicaid/Medicare and SSI?

Or do you just care about money that may have gone to Halliburton.

(13) Our government blamed an uncertain news source for 16 deaths and numerous injuries in Afghani riots, yet no one, save George Tenet, took the fall for the implausibly poor intelligence our government claims to have had before 9/11;
So, would you like to put the blame on 9/11 on the Clinton CIA, FBI and NSA? I mean the attacks were in the planning stages for three years, Bush was President for 8 months. Are you going to spread out the blame or just assign it to the person in charge the day of the attack.

(14) The rotation of reasons for going into Iraq; WMDs, the ouster of Saddam, to protect the women and children, to install a democratic government;
Above all else, Iraq was in violation of 14 UN agreements and the ceasefire that ended the first Gulf War. Any other reason or validation is irrelevent compared to the fact that this invasion was legally nothing more than an extension of a previous war whose cease fire was not being honored by the losing side.

(15) That our military knowingly lied about the death of a well-known solider in Afghanistan in order to boost enlistment;
The death of Pat Tillman was in fact a coverup, at the unit level. The unit didn't want to embarass themselves for the blue on blue death. Once you got people above the rank of lieutenant, above the platoon level, there was no coverup.

The Rangers made a mistake at the 36-40 man unit level in trying to obscure the truth. That's much different than it being directed from the battalion, brigade, division or corps level. It's no different than an individual store trying to cover up a shoplifting incident where a person was beaten by employees as opposed to the district covering it up or a coporation.

Sounds to me like you have a lot of personal angst that your side tried all this 6 months ago and.... you still lost the elections in a stunning fashion. I recommend taking a break from hating America and its leadership for a while, it really has made you delusional.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']:applause: Bra-fucking-vo[/QUOTE]


Oh, and Tip, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you call everyone a fool? Do you think anyone takes Quack seriously because of it?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Hmm. When losing a debate, resort to ad hominem attacks. Nice work there, sunshine. You win the debate trophy of this thread.

So, let me get this straight: because one group beheads people, it is okay for another group to abuse people?

Real classy of you to make the insurgents responsible for abuse. Don't even deny it; without beheadings, you'd have no excuse for the behavior that went on at Abu Ghraib. Way to blame the victim. Real classy.

myke.[/QUOTE]

Quick, show of hands of anyone that thinks I care about scoring a thread with forensic style points! No one? Color me shocked.

Uh, yes, I would have an excuse for the behavior at Abu Ghraib.... they're terrorists without legal standing.
 
So you support abuse. Good to see that you're open about your disdain for the Geneva Conventions. This helps me understand how we transitioned from having the world on our side to having the world despise our arrogance.

So, do you really think that this war will become "America's Golden Moment?"

myke.
 
Everyone needs to chill. Europe didn't change overnight after WWII. The Wall didn't come down until 1989. The President has to optimistic about it. Whoever is elected in the next election (probably Hilary from the looks of it) has to be optimistic about it also. It will take time to see the final outcome, good or bad. Hindsight is useless. Abu Ghraib important but it is but a small portion of the war. That is not to dismiss it at all. People are being tried for the abuse (at least the grunts are). If more abuse occurs, then more people will be tried. Hopefully the Iraqi military will soon be strong enough to capture al-Zarqawi and try him in a court of law for the beheadings/killings he has perpetrated and the ones that are still going on.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Dumbass, we do behave better than them. We don't cut off their fucking heads. How fucking dumb are you? We pay for them to have religous leaders in prison, we give them Korans, we prepare them halal meals, we allow them organized prayer 5 times a day. What more to you want?

Click on those links and see how terrorists treat their prisoners then get back to me.

You are beyond dumb and not even worth debating.[/QUOTE]

No, we dont cut off their heads (at least what is shown so far), but we do: Beat them, rape the women, kill innocent civillians, bomb civillian houses...etc etc and that is so much better :roll:

And I have noticed on international news that before they cut off the heads of the people they have demands as to not do it.
For example in the last one I remember, they wanted all the women to be released...WOMEN what the fuck do the soldiers need the women for besides the obvious raping.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So you support abuse. Good to see that you're open about your disdain for the Geneva Conventions. This helps me understand how we transitioned from having the world on our side to having the world despise our arrogance.

So, do you really think that this war will become "America's Golden Moment?"

myke.[/QUOTE]

You are, of course, aware that the Geneva Accords do not apply to non-uniformed combatants? You can't have disdain for international treaties that don't apply to the persons in question.

Nice try though sport!

You're going to see a region of the world completely transformed in 20 years. Tokyo held the summer Olympiad in 1964. This less than 20 years after the majority of the city was in ruins and firebombed to ashes. When we've set forth to transforming countries and regions, we have.

Of course you can't see that because you understand nothing of history and just want abject failure to advance your political bigotry. Boy, you sure are great though in telling us how bad we suck!

You go!
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You are, of course, aware that the Geneva Accords do not apply to non-uniformed combatants? You can't have disdain for international treaties that don't apply to the persons in question.

Nice try though sport!

You're going to see a region of the world completely transformed in 20 years. Tokyo held the summer Olympiad in 1964. This less than 20 years after the majority of the city was in ruins and firebombed to ashes. When we've set forth to transforming countries and regions, we have.

Of course you can't see that because you understand nothing of history and just want abject failure to advance your political bigotry. Boy, you sure are great though in telling us how bad we suck!

You go![/QUOTE]

I'll accept your explanation about the Geneva Conventions; this does not excuse our behavior in any way, shape, or form. You do understand that, if we expect the middle east to end up the neocon wet dream, we would do well not to further infuriate the people who live there, don't you? Are there people in Iraq and other areas who support what the United States is doing? Without a doubt; with that in mind, our military must behave with reverence towards any captives, and the religion followed by the majority of the population there, if we have any intention of being successful. Strongarm tactics that you seem to think nothing of condemning will only lead to greater collective outrage, and another charismatic resistance against the United States forces.

Why does nobody talk about the "coalition of the willing" anymore?

If I recall, and correct me if I'm wrong, that Pearl Harbor was more tangible evidence for our involvement in the PTO than...oh, what was that Iraq did to us again?

Also, you'd be silly to think that the exceptional differences between the middle east and Japan won't affect the outcome; Japan embraced capitalism and democracy, and its religion was perfectly compatible with the coexistence of others (despite their incredible xenophobia). I doubt you could expect such warmth in Iraq. It is possible that people said the same thing about Japan in the 40's, though.

myke.
...I relish in the thought of your mind cringing trying to come up with an explanation at how we've completey squandered the international support we had post 9/11. I look forward to it.
 
I think it was more international sympathy than support after 9/11 (that's not a bad thing necessarily). The primary country that supported us militarily in Afghanistan was Great Britain which is pretty much the same in Iraq. The world as a whole would much rather be reactive than proactive. I can understand that because being reactive is safer politically. The world fears a destabilized Middle East and that is understandable as well. Frankly it has never been that stable over the century even before the Iraq invasion. I think after the 9/11 tragedy where intelligence (in hindsight) was overlooked that could have prevented the attack, the current administration wanted to take no chances that history would say they let another tragedy occur. I am not saying that to justify the government's actions or to give credence to protesters. That is just how it seems to me.
 
Myke, while I know you're passionate about these issues, we had these discussions in 2003 and 2004. Your rehash of the NYT/Newsweek/DNC/Air America/Farenheit 911/Kerry campaign talking points come down to this; your side lost the PR battle before the war and then lost the follow up election.

With all due respect, I'm bowing out, these topics have been abused like a red headed step-child already on here and no one's opinion is going anywhere.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Myke, while I know you're passionate about these issues, we had these discussions in 2003 and 2004. Your rehash of the NYT/Newsweek/DNC/Air America/Farenheit 911/Kerry campaign talking points come down to this; your side lost the PR battle before the war and then lost the follow up election.

With all due respect, I'm bowing out, these topics have been abused like a red headed step-child already on here and no one's opinion is going anywhere.[/QUOTE]

Sounds good to me, for the time being anyway; I'm enjoying this, but I also have the obligation to write a $20,000 research proposal this weekend, so I'm better off doing that.

I will say this, though; before the war really started, I don't recall a great degree of opposition (although some certainly existed). Those who wanted to go into Iraq pretty much had carte blanche to do what they wanted (given the public's sentiment at the time). I think the Senate vote was also evidence of that (77-23?). Point being, I don't think there was much anti-war sentiment before the war to say that we lost it.

myke.
...I also think that we should have learned that uncharismatic politicos don't get elected by watching Dole/Kemp before nominating Kerry. Shame about the media and Howard Dean. (so much for me bowing out! I'll try, I swear!)
 
damn, Myke is pwning the shit out of you on this thread.

i've read it in a really objective fashion, considering the things i've read in my foreign politics class (my teacher's brother is bush's speechwriter so you know it's not all liberal nonesense) and i have to say that Myke's points are not only spot on but backed up with good empirical evidence.

that was some verbal beat down...
 
especially with PittsburghAfterDark ignoring the "crux" of Myke's argument the entire time, as well as the ad hominem attacks.

it is interesting to see people argue because they are "right' and not because they want to have greater understanding of the issue.

clearly neither side of this particular argument has all the answers, and yet this seems to be the assumption.

how novel it would be to assume that both parties offer information and perspective that could prove fruitful...
 
from the posted article:

"You threw pennies at Tecumseh, the god of 2.0. I knew him pretty well when I was in school," Bush joked, recalling his own academic mediocrity at Yale University.


:shock:


:lol:
 
[quote name='Dante Devil']God, how scary is that image! Funny thing is, its becoming more and more true.[/QUOTE]

Uh, no it's not.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'](10) Forcing our "all volunteer army" to serve terms longer than they were contractually obligated to;
Incorrect. Not one contract has been broken.

Soldiers are not being held for 28 months if their service contract is 24 months. Tours of duty are being extended but contracts are not being broken.

(11) Nobody taking responsibility in our government for the lack of properly armored soldiers and vehicles, despite #3 above;
You cannot armor every vehicle. It's simply impossible. Ditto every soldier.

It's an ugly business, people die, equipment gets destroyed. That's what the military and military operations are designed to do; kill people and break things.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, contacts are being renewed by the department of defense WITHOUT the consent of the soldiers. They are being reenlisted without their knowledge.

How patriotic is that?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'] Your rehash of the NYT/Newsweek/DNC/Air America/Farenheit 911/Kerry campaign talking points come down to this; your side lost the PR battle before the war and then lost the follow up election.

.[/QUOTE]

It is interesting to think that winning a "PR battle" and a fucking close election equates to being right. It doesn't.

Furthermore, your misguided gloating has no relevance in today's political landscape. You guys are losing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top