George Bush apologists

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along. First things first. I know that Jefferson was an isolationist during his Presidency; the comment was to show that he understood that freedom is worth spilling blood. That concept is absent in the modern world.

Where did I say we should be as barbaric as our enemy? I said if we want to win, we should bomb the infrastructure of the country until they are helpless. I understand that will result in civilian casualties which was the whole point of my post. Where did you get the information that our military is mostly kids? There is no selective service in this war. They are professional soldiers and my guess that they could handle killing at least as well as the soldiers of every previous war. Your over dramatic concern for the emotional well being of the "kid" soldiers shows the weakness of character that I am talking about. It is a war, there is no place for cowardice.

Then you go completely off the deep end and accuse me of asking our military to perform suicide bombings. What the hell is that? I never said shoot the women and children. I said "bomb the infrastructure." If we do that we must be prepared to accept the collateral damage in the form of civilian casualties including women and children.

Do you believe the crap you write? You think I want more or our soldiers to die? If we do it my way, we barely even need soldiers on the ground. We simply send the air force to blow up their entire infrastructure of the country. No electricity, water, bridges, roads, pipelines! NOTHING. If they rebuild it, bomb it again. No need to have hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground. Far less US soldiers would die.

I am on record specifically saying I don't endorse the use of nuclear weapons but there you are telling everyone I want to nuke Iraq. I am also on record saying that I will reserve my judgement of Barack Obama until the end of his first term but you post I don't like him. And when the hell did I mention Ronald Reagan? When did I say I want revenge on the terrorists for 9/11?

Let me spell it out for you. I don't even support these wars. I was simply pointing out that we cant win these wars without accepting the fact that winning a war involves the heavy burden of casualties.

Now do you want to address my post or just continue to make stuff up?

 

Nothing hipocritical about it at all, if he was such a threat then why was he not removed when we had the legitimate excuse to do so? We sat back and allowed him to slaughter untold thousands of those who had supported us during GW I they rose up on our say so and we deserted them.
Now tell me what legitimate excuse we had for removing him in 2003?
I have heard it sid he was involved with the attack on America totaly disproven, I have heard it said he had wepons of mass destruction, this is true (he used gas on his own people and the iranians) but so do many other countries that we do not invade? He did not have the capability to attack the USA nor the UK as was sugested by President Bush and my own Prime minister!
We were allready fighting one war in the region in Afghanistan were those responsible actualy were why fight on 2 fronts?

Now on to taking out the infrastructure of the country, that is something we should have done at stage one of the opperations in both Afghanistan and Iraq, it would have saved us a lot of problems in the long run and yes there would have been civilian casualties but a lot less than with a prolonged ground offensive.

 

I will explain. and I made a mistake I was going to reply to another post but clicked yours in error. I will delete those segnents now.

 

You said we couldnt win this war because we fear collaterl damage. Right? but the enemy doesnt fear that. Right? They will walk into a store or office with a supercharged sweater vest and blow it up. Regardless of the collateral damge. Right? Our enemy thinks nothing of flying jets into office buildings. And to me thats pretty babaric. You want the US to drop bombs on homes and structures that will without doubt kill women and children. Right? To me thats just as babaric. And you are correct about the soldiers fighting over there. I was just going by the age of the children of some of my friends and the two boys who joined the marines from my block. Ya just cant do it. You cant ask a pilot to take out civilians just because they happen to live were you are fighting. How in the F**K could that pilot explain himself to God? Killing the enemy in war is different than killing everybody whos home.

 

I don't want us to do anything of the sort as I have already stated I don't support the wars. However, if we want to win the war, that is exactly what we must do. Maybe you don't have the fortitude to accept that responsibility but the members of our armed forces certainly do. You can ask a pilot to do that and our military has done exactly that many times in the past.

As for how the pilot can explain himself to God, you are assuming that God would either want or need an explanation. Religion is a funny thing. In yours, you have to explain to God why you killed someone. In our enemies, you have to kill someone just to see God. Every religious person in the world swears they are right. How bad would it suck for you if when you died you found out the Muslims were right?

In every major city across the United States there are gangs. These gangs wage war all over our country and many of the participants are teenagers. Do us a favor and drop the innocent child routine. If it bothers you that much you should dedicate your life to stopping the gang violence that decimates our inner city youth. At the very least you should be doing something to change the age of the selective service. The fact is that it is probably easier for most teenagers to fight in a war. Because of their age, very few are married and have children and don't carry the burden of widowing their wife and orphaning their children.

 

Wait, you clicked on my post in error? The first line in your response is about Jefferson which is part of my post. I don't believe that this was an innocent mistake for a minute. Your attempt to cover your true intent with this lame "I made a mistake" routine only goes to show that my assessment of your character was right on.

 

Yeah..what in the world is wrong with you craig? Bomb first...ask questions later. There ain't no God and teenagers would probably just join gangs anyway, so why not put 'em in our gang? Besides...if we ship over to brown countries ASAP, they won't have much of a chance to have families or children. Kill em all....it's just a matter of fortitude. Stop the violence of our inner city youth and send them to fetch our oil. That's just good business.

 

Old habits are hard to break huh Tom. I canceled the order for white face paint and a red nose for your x-mas present. Looks like I will have to reorder.

 

Yes I suppose so. You beat up on folks a lot, and I'm just defending my side of the fence when I see certain things reflected in your posts by trying to highlight them.
Red wig and shoes would be good too...thanks. Happy Holidays.

Let me pick a point on 911, and let's debate, one point at a time and make an attempt at keeping it impersonal..not like the nonsense it turned into before. I'll even argue metallologyism with you. You ought to be able to tear me apart there...make you look even smarter..pump up your ego a bit. What do you say sport?

 

Trying to tick me off just to get me to rekindle our debate over 9/11 is not going to work. Neither is exaggerating and twisting my words from posts on other topics. The only way you are going to get the debate going again is if you recruit someone else.

What I would be interested in is your opinion on the subject. Do you think we can win a war using our current strategy or do you think I am correct. Maybe you have a completely different strategy. What say you?

 

You can believe what you want. Imeant to comment on both your and jth's posts.(If you go back you will see it was jth that mentioned Reagan and Nuking Iran and that we need a real commander-in-chief. I guessed that he meant now and not 17 years from now.). I just got caught up in writing and didnt break. But you choose not accept this. Makes no difference to me. Be honest, you wouldnt accept any explanation. I mustve disagreed with you somewhere in here and it made you very angry. Or just some people dont like other people for whatever reason. Who cares, right? you seem a very beelicose person to me. But thats just my opinion. heres a tip for you. when you write a comment, you dont have to be so melodramatic. No reason to go on and on. ''Now do you want to address my post or continue to make things up?''. The less words the more poignant. You wrote that this is what we(again I'm guessing you mean the U.S.)MUST do this barbaric thing(drop bombs that will kill the innocent civilians as well as the enemy. Oh sorry, you said no one was innocent ver there. You said that so dont say you didnt. Thats what you and your kind do. You allude and infer your posts so if someone refutes them you can say 'I never said that.', 'Those arent my words.'. Listen man, when you post something that you think; THATS WHAT YOU THINK! If you write that the US must do this or that to win. Then that is what YOU think they must do. Maybe everyone doesnt think that. Maybe someone think they MUST do something else to win. And that would be their opinion. but you want to mince words and pick gnat crap out of pepper. that way you can deny your post when you are called on them. Inner city youth. Please. Then you can say, ''Oh. I meant Italians.''. You missed the point about the suicide bombers. The enemy doesnt care about the collateral damage such action brings. And you said we care too much about collateral damage. If we didnt, then having U.S. soldiers blow themselves up in a crowded store for the greater good wouldnt be hard to imagine. and i gotta tell ya. you have some crust talking about my character when you have your avatar location as a poker room. Nice. And dont give me that ''its legal'' crud. I live in a state where prostitution is legal, but everyone doesnt go to brothels. And I've a feeling you'd be in a poker room even if it was illegal. And if you are going to respond; Right back atcha pal.

 

Do you really live in Las Vegas? What the hell is that comment about the poker room? Are you insinuating that playing poker is illegal or a deviant activity. I live in Atlantic City and work in a casino, I play poker at a different casino after work. Poker is a mainstream activity in the US. If you don't believe me, just turn on ESPN2 any night of the week. Only and absolute clown would question someone's character because they play poker.

It amuses me that you criticize my posts calling them melodramatic and that I try to duck others comments about my posts. Would saying that our "kid" soldiers can't handle the emotional stresses of war qualify as melodramatic when the "kids" have handled it in every other US war previous to this one? How about using the word barbaric repeatedly to describe collateral damage?

I did say all of the things you listed above. I wrote my opinion about what I think the US needs to do if they want to win the war. Of course you very conveniently omit the fact that I said I don't think we should even fight the war in the first place. But to you that makes no difference. You are a nothing but master at contextomy.

In just about everyone of your posts, there is a section so stupid that I can't believe I even waste my time arguing with the likes of you. Let me understand this. You think that US soldiers as suicide bombers wouldn't be hard to imagine but at the same time you are horrified by the barbaric nature of collateral damage. The use of suicide bombers has nothing to do with the enemy not caring about collateral damage. Their mission as stated in their religion is to kill the infidels and doing so while sacrificing their own life allows them to reach paradise. In other words, if they were not Muslim, there wouldn't be suicide bombings. Since the United States is not a Muslim state, imagining US soldiers as suicide bombers would be impossible. Or were you just being melodramatic?

BTW, you like to criticize spelling and grammar incessantly yet you don't know how to use paragraphs. Or is that just a low brow trick to make your post more difficult to read? Its okay, given your character, I already know the answer.

 

Well the flame's gotten pretty low on 911. Better to let the embers burn completely out rather than fan them. Good strategy. ANYONE else? I'd even accept David or Midas at this point........on second thought.. Anyone else?
C'mon...ONE point. Mine is such an inconceivable set of implausible, fact free, ridiculous assumptions and the "real" story is so solid and credible, it should be a slam dunk. How bout a wager of sorts. I post an observation that I think is irrefutable, someone reasonably disprove it, and I'll drop the subject. De Orc can be the sole judge as to whether the point was won by me or whomever. couple things though. I (that's me) choose the point to be discussed, and we stick to that point only until a verdict rendered from his honor De Orc, and DeOrc....please do a little research before you post a verdict, and post your source. If I win the point...the same person that lost the point, then has to respond to another point I choose or openly declare that they "surrender" so to speak. Again, hopefully, DeOrc will assist. I'm confident he can be fair and mostly impartial. Lastly, since Lehigh opted out..he can't come back in if I start scoring points. C'mon....it Christmas. Someone humor me in the spirit of the holidays.

My response to your war question Lehigh, is that until the Bush doctrine..we had no preemptive war policy, but since the Haliburton/Exxon Mobil stockholder instituted his own set of rules, we're "gang bangin'" all over the world with other people's kids to get other people's dollars flowing. That's what it's really all about and it is obviously (at least to me) wrong. But if we have to fight the compulsory wars, then ALL kids, with any blood connections to anyone in Washington politics, their kids must enlist first and then, the Washington players, be required to forfeit one of their loved ones to die in the same fashion, same circumstance that got one of the non political kids killed. That includes obviously sons, daughters, and not limited to newphews, nieces, cousins, etc. We go that route...and I'm with ya Lehigh. That would constitute true sincerity, and dedication from our leaders. Then if they say we have to fight and they say there's no other way, after having met that criteria, then...I could believe them. What say you? (God I hate Bill O)

 

Hey, tomc, you forgot the most important rule for your arguments:
Lehigh (or whoever indulges you) can't cloudy your "proof" with petty things like the truth, common sense or logic....that just wouldn't be fair to you.
Oh yeah, 1 more thing, when you cite such high-minded thinkers as Ryan Seacrest, Wille Nelson or Cheech & Chong as experts you should link to the TMZ or National Enquirer (High Times?) article where you stumbled upon their genius.

 

David.....you really are a sad example of something...not sure exactly what it is though. YOU are siting Ryan Seacrest, TMZ, Nation Enquirer as "experts" in some half baked attempt at humor I suppose. You threw in TMZ and Nat'l Enquirer. I DID NOT. I DID once list Willie Nelson and Tommy Chong as part of a list of well known celebrities that openly question 911 and say the government's fable is exactly that...a fable...and FALSE.. Of course...you chose two of the more "colorful" characters in order to facilitate your spin attempt. YOU listed Ryan Seacrest as part of your agenda of misdirection. I did NOT list them as "experts". YOU DID. Rather, they are only a couple of the long list of celebrities that endorse a REAL investigation...not the sham that the idiot general public swallowed.

I can also list (and have) long lists of military brass, enlisted personnel who say the same thing. I can list endless names of architects, civil engineers that say that the way the buildings fell could ONLY be a result of demolition. I can provide long lists of names of physics scientists, chemical and structural engineers that say the same thing.

But you keep right on ridiculing and taking things out of context, and mixing your stupid words in with some of mine and mixing them up, and present your attempt at humor like the good member of the Fox watching army of zombies that you represent so well, and I'll keep giving you material to misconstrue.

You're a load of laughs David...Happy Holidays.

 

Well, there you have it- I certainly can't doubt these "experts"!

 

Tom,

I don't know why you are so fixated on the children of the elite serving in our military. It would seem logical that even if they were enlisted, they would never see the front lines. I understand your desire, but it is not realistic. They never have in history and never will. That doesn't mean that the leaders of our country are automatically cavalier because they don't have a personal stake in the war. Furthermore, none of these wars are using unwilling participants as a result of a draft. Every soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan volunteered for military service.

I agree that these wars are preemptive and not consistent with the long standing foreign policy of our country. The Bush administration played upon the emotions of the US citizens from 9/11 to garner support for this radical new policy. Unfortunately, our society has degenerated into a bunch of sissies who are completely unwilling to accept that sacrifices necessary to win a war. You can't fight a war and have your main goal be the minimization of casualties. I don't think this country will ever have the stomach to fight a war with a true commitment to victory unless the war is fought on our own soil.

The answer to your question is that I don't think we should be fighting these wars. The problem is that until we end our dependence on foreign oil, I fear we will always we mired in conflict with this region of the world.

 

Of course they wouldn't see the front lines. I'm suggesting that if they did or had to, war with anyone would not be so quick, if at all. Let's say Georgey boy had to send his oldest daughter to the front lines and she was killed...then his second daughter was slated for the front lines next...well..somehow I'm sure diplomacy would have a new face, but you're right that will never happen. Another reason I disdain Bush (as if I need another) is he instituted the policy of not being able to see bodies coming back to Dover AFB. Out of sight...out of mind I guess as far as the public is concerned...certainly that's his view. Point is you ain't sending your kids to be killed, so don't send mine or anybody elses. Hypocrisy is one of my main problems with the right and of the left. That's the first thing I recognize when these creeps whine about how bad the other one is (which sparkles amongst the right currently).
Oil..money will reign supreme for some time to come, you're right there too. But I don't have to like it and I don't have to vote for the criminals that generate wars out of nothing, no reason, as Georgey, and his party did. That isn't exclusive to the right for sure, but, they're always the first ones in line to unconditionally support military ops. They're also the party that represent the wealthy...two very bad combinations and two very good starting points to despise the right and what they represent IMHO.

 

No more than anybody could doubt your "expert" analysis.

 

I've never tried to pass my views off as anything more than "one man's opinion"- is that wrong in your beloved Mmm Mmm Mmm BO's new world order?