The lame part is that the people who DID know what to expect, got the
boot for saying so.
I feel ill just thinking about how good reputations were ruined just
to achieve the wanted(?) outcome.
-den
--
"Am I afraid of high notes? Of course I am afraid. What sane man is not?"
Luciano Pavaro
>We haven't tried my idea. Much like we never invaded North Vietnam, we
>won't invade Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Syria.
>
That would have been sheer stupidity if the US had. That would have started
WWIII with all its mutual destruction protocols etc. Not sure about you but I
look terrible
I am listening actually. I just don't think that a soldier on the
ground has the bird's eye view needed for policy decisions, and the
policy decisions that have been made so far really suck. I am not
convinced that more of the same solves anything. If we are alienating
the local population, more of
Dana, the vast majority of soldiers agree that we need to see this
through, doesn't that mean anything to you?
We don't want to see the lives already lost mean nothing, and would
rather lose more than simply quit now.
We are an all volunteer military, and anyone who is in now has enlisted
or r
There is honor in being a good soldier. There is no honor in being a
commander who sends good soldiers into harm's way for stupid or
self-serving reasons.
On 3/25/08, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's an emotional response. Honor isn't always something logical.
>
> Dana wrote:
> > I didn't
"Hopefully over time they can be brought along like Japan and Germany "
*shakes head*
On 25/03/2008, sam morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Ge
What do you think Obama's Campaign Co-Chair and chief military adviser is
telling him?
100 years and no democracy?
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/25/dems-plan-100-years-of-war-campaign-just-ask-mcpeak/
Gen McPeak:
Is Iraq the last country we confront in the Middle East?
Who wants to volun
We haven't tried my idea. Much like we never invaded North Vietnam, we
won't invade Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Syria.
Larry Lyons wrote:
>> If you kill enough of the right people it will.
>>
>> We won WW2 by killing millions of people. We didn't win any political
>> debate. Didn't win he
>If you kill enough of the right people it will.
>
>We won WW2 by killing millions of people. We didn't win any political
>debate. Didn't win hearts and minds. That came after the military
>victory. First we crushed the opposition, then went into Marshall mode.
>
>Dana wrote:
>>
WWII was a c
> tBone wrote:
> Remember, I am the advocate of total war. Find out who funds and
> provides support and comfort to our enemies (Pakistan, Saudi, Iran,
> Syria) and go after them.
Now we're agreeing again.
I just don't think shooting messenger boys and kamikazes is the way to
win that war. T
Nope, I say this isn't just about Iraq. I say it's about Islamic
extremism, the current battlefields are simply limited to Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Remember, I am the advocate of total war. Find out who funds and
provides support and comfort to our enemies (Pakistan, Saudi, Iran,
Syria) and go
> tBone wrote:
> We won WW2 by killing millions of people.
And therein lies the problem with Iraq: we're not at war with it's
government and the people that support the government. In WWII we
were at war with Germany, the country and people, and Japan, country
and people.
In Iraq, the war agai
Dana,
I have come to the conclusion that no mater what me or Loathe or anyone
else says, nothing is going to change each others minds, so there is
really no point in continuing this discussion. We have gone over and
over this and it really is a dead horse. So I am done with this
conversation. Y
It's an emotional issue.
Dana wrote:
> hanging our heads in shame? way to ask a dispassionate question
>
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Bruce Sorge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So besides surrender and hang our heads in shame, what do you suggest?
>>
>> Dana wrote:
>>> what is taking ca
If you kill enough of the right people it will.
We won WW2 by killing millions of people. We didn't win any political
debate. Didn't win hearts and minds. That came after the military
victory. First we crushed the opposition, then went into Marshall mode.
Dana wrote:
> what is taking care o
It's an emotional response. Honor isn't always something logical.
Dana wrote:
> I didn't say they were. I am trying to point out the underlying flaw
> in your logic.
>
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Government and the military aren't businesses.
>>
>>
>>
hanging our heads in shame? way to ask a dispassionate question
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Bruce Sorge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So besides surrender and hang our heads in shame, what do you suggest?
>
> Dana wrote:
> > what is taking care of business in this context? If it involves
So besides surrender and hang our heads in shame, what do you suggest?
Dana wrote:
> what is taking care of business in this context? If it involves
> killing people it's probably not going to solve anything either
~|
Adobe® Cold
what is taking care of business in this context? If it involves
killing people it's probably not going to solve anything either.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Bruce Sorge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess you missed the important part. Untie our hands and let us take
> care of business.
>
>
I didn't say they were. I am trying to point out the underlying flaw
in your logic.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Government and the military aren't businesses.
>
>
> Dana wrote:
> > Isn't that the heart of the matter? We don't have a clue who the
> > players
Government and the military aren't businesses.
Dana wrote:
> Isn't that the heart of the matter? We don't have a clue who the
> players are let alone what they are trying to do or by what rules.
> What a lose-lose proposition. Saying that we need to stay until we win
> is like saying that a busine
I guess you missed the important part. Untie our hands and let us take
care of business.
Dana wrote:
> Isn't that the heart of the matter? We don't have a clue who the
> players are let alone what they are trying to do or by what rules.
> What a lose-lose proposition. Saying that we need to stay
Isn't that the heart of the matter? We don't have a clue who the
players are let alone what they are trying to do or by what rules.
What a lose-lose proposition. Saying that we need to stay until we win
is like saying that a business should sell below cost and make it up
on volume. It will not happ
Two problems with that.
1. The bad guys look just like the good guys.
2. Our hands are tied in regards to what we can and can't do. Can't get
into details but I can tell you that our hands are tied.
And when they report the number of civilians killed, they are including
the number killed by the
Continue the war, win the war, restore order to at least one part of the
middle east, hope that democracy spreads, declare victory and come home
with our heads held high.
Dana wrote:
> I don't care about the pre-war quotes from democrats. I care about
> what do we do from here forward.
>
> On Mo
I don't care about the pre-war quotes from democrats. I care about
what do we do from here forward.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Bruce Sorge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not new but interesting. I especially like the Pre-War Quotes from
> Democrats.
>
> http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.i
weak whiny bitches huh ;) why don't you tell us what you really think.
Shiiit. The problem with your theory is that killing all the bad guys
doesn't work unless it is actually the bad guys you are killing.
That's all.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thing is y
HOOHAA!
LOL. :]
The end just had me rolling. Needed a good "nuke'em" post, thanks
Loathe-star!
Points of order tho:
1) It's the "conservatives" fucking up our constitution. Maybe they're
neo-cons, but whatever. The bastards who are supposed to be the most down
for the constitution, basicall
ROFLMAO!
Been watching some 300 lately?
:-)
But its good to see you letting loose and not hiding behind any veneer
of Liberty, Democracy and Freedom.
War. Murder. Death. Destruction.
I like it.It's the true American Way eh?
Not that whiney liberal BS.
LOL...
I'm sorry man..but I have this image
Not new but interesting. I especially like the Pre-War Quotes from
Democrats.
http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/
Dana wrote:
> you're right, unless you have something new you are not going to
> convince me. And you aren't going to have anything new because you
> refuse to examine your
Thing is you've been answered and answered and answered, yet you
continue to harp on the same bull shit. I haven't said you wouldn't
understand, I'm sure you understand perfectly, you just refuse to deal
with what is required to be the sole super power left on this planet.
If you like the way
some flippant comment? I want to know what good reason there was for
4,000 soldiers to be killed, let alone all the Iraqi casualties. I am
really not being flippant and no, I don't want to hear that it's
national security and I wouldn't understand. If you don't have an
answer that's fine; I am used
you're right, unless you have something new you are not going to
convince me. And you aren't going to have anything new because you
refuse to examine your position on the matter. A shame but there it
is.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Bruce Sorge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not so much tha
Sorry, I'm in archive mode so I have to guess the names.
>He meant my list.
>
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Trial
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;2237
It was 12 years, and just one of the many reasons that taken together
led me, and many other people on this list to agree that sadaams day had
come to an end.
Dana wrote:
> uhh... we're the ones who ordered the inspectors out. And since when
> to we respect the UN??? Bush plays chicken with the
He meant my list.
Dana wrote:
> Bruce doesn't have a list. He referred me to the archives :) said he
> didn't have time himself
>
> On 3/24/08, sam morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Does Bruce's list apply to any of them?
>>
>>> all of those could conceivably be said to harbor or sponsor
>>> t
Not "ma daddy"
How about"our president"?
Its ok, ignore all the rest, you do it all the time. Focus on one
point, make some flippant comment and make no progress in the debate.
Dana wrote:
> ah it boils down to thi sis the guy who tried to kill my dad? So let's
> kill lots of dads. Great. That
It's not so much that I did not have time (well, sort of. Had to take a
shower and get ready for work). I don't have the inclination to search for
an answer to a question that me and others have answered on more than one
occasion. And I have realized that regardless of what answer we give you,
unle
uhh... we're the ones who ordered the inspectors out. And since when
to we respect the UN??? Bush plays chicken with the United Nations all
the time.
The revolt was bad stuff but you lose the authority to do anything
about it if you wait for twenty-some years first. Otherwise it's like
some other
Bruce doesn't have a list. He referred me to the archives :) said he
didn't have time himself
On 3/24/08, sam morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does Bruce's list apply to any of them?
>
> >all of those could conceivably be said to harbor or sponsor
> >terrorists. But hey, why not any other count
ah it boils down to thi sis the guy who tried to kill my dad? So let's
kill lots of dads. Great. That will work.
On 3/24/08, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why anyone, we should just be pacifists and allow whatever country that
> wants to to kill Americans at will, attempt to assassinate
Because we had a contractual cease fire agreement with them.
Because we had embarrassed ourselves by allowing the revolt we sponsored
to be crushed.
Because with or without WMD he was the largest threat to the
petrochemical homeland of the Middle East, and no matter if you'd like
to admit it or
Why anyone, we should just be pacifists and allow whatever country that
wants to to kill Americans at will, attempt to assassinate our leaders,
violate their cease fires, support terror attacks against us and our
allies. I mean, looking the other way for over 20 years made it go away
right?
s
Does Bruce's list apply to any of them?
>all of those could conceivably be said to harbor or sponsor
>terrorists. But hey, why not any other country? Bluster and bluff are
>part of diplomacy. Quite a few countries mistreat their citizens.
>Quite a few countries have islamist leanings and think the
all of those could conceivably be said to harbor or sponsor
terrorists. But hey, why not any other country? Bluster and bluff are
part of diplomacy. Quite a few countries mistreat their citizens.
Quite a few countries have islamist leanings and think the US is a
threat to their view of the world,
Why them?
>again... why? Why Iraq and not Somalia or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan?
>
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Trial
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;2
again... why? Why Iraq and not Somalia or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan?
On 3/24/08, sam morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nice parsing:
> It's true that the Pentagon report found no "smoking gun," i.e., a direct
> connection on a joint Iraq-al Qaeda operation.
>
> But...
>
> At the very least the r
Nice parsing:
It's true that the Pentagon report found no "smoking gun," i.e., a direct
connection on a joint Iraq-al Qaeda operation.
But...
At the very least the report should dispel the notion that outwardly "secular"
Saddam would never consort with religious types like al Qaeda. A pan-Arab
ok so the *Pentagon* now says that there's no proof of a
connection between al Qaeda and Saddam and the Wall Street Journal
says that just goes to show how sneaky he was?
lol
Even if he wasn't a nice guy, how can you pulverize a country over
Saddam and allow a Darfur? Whatever happened to all
:)
so we can show those iraqis
?
Dana
On 3/24/08, Bruce Sorge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, I went to bed. Did not know I was supposed to stay up all night.
> Why do we need to see it through? For the reasons that I mentioned
> earlier and for the same reasons that the others on this list
at least you understand that your fifth reason *is* irrational
On 3/24/08, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Irrational?
>
> Again, just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them
> irrational, I'd say only my 5th reason for staying is irrational.
>
> How do they not constitute an a
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120631495290958169.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
or
http://tinyurl.com/yvqg9s
Saddam's Terror Links
>Simply because you don't agree with the reasons that many of us have
>given for starting or continuing the war doesn't mean that no one can
>articulat
Sorry, I went to bed. Did not know I was supposed to stay up all night.
Why do we need to see it through? For the reasons that I mentioned
earlier and for the same reasons that the others on this list have
mentioned. I am not going to scour all of the posts on this list and
repost the answers fo
Irrational?
Again, just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them
irrational, I'd say only my 5th reason for staying is irrational.
How do they not constitute an answer. You ask why did we go, why should
we stay. An answer is provided.
Dana wrote:
> oh all right. It's true that you
oh all right. It's true that you have said most of this before. That
doesn't mean it constitutes an answer though.
The reasons you give are even more irrational than the ones the
administration maintains are the truth. In other words, the beatings
will continue until morale improves.
Dana
On 3/2
Asked and answered, more than once, you can continue to argue the point,
but the bullshit insistence that no one has provided answers is
blatantly not true.
You don't have to agree with the answers but saying they simply don't
exist is disingenuous, a fantasy.
Dana wrote:
> and look -- since w
Simply because you don't agree with the reasons that many of us have
given for starting or continuing the war doesn't mean that no one can
articulate them.
I've done this ad nauseam, but wtf, let's do it again.
Reasons for starting the war:
1. Multiple cease fire violations
2. Refusal to allow
and look -- since we know you don't know the answer to that question,
some obama supporters got together to help draft up an answer...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs
On 3/23/08, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> why?
>
> On 3/23/08, Bruce Sorge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You can w
why?
On 3/23/08, Bruce Sorge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can word it however you want, but yes. Like I said, regardless of
> the reason, we are at war, and the next president is going to inherit
> this war, and they need to see it through.
>
> Dana wrote:
> > so your problem with the man is t
You can word it however you want, but yes. Like I said, regardless of
the reason, we are at war, and the next president is going to inherit
this war, and they need to see it through.
Dana wrote:
> so your problem with the man is that he is not willing to prolong a
> war? Even though nobody can a
so your problem with the man is that he is not willing to prolong a
war? Even though nobody can articulate a reason for waging it?
On 3/23/08, Bruce Sorge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In case you missed it, that was sarcasm. My point is that any candidate
> should not be judged on one singular iss
In case you missed it, that was sarcasm. My point is that any candidate
should not be judged on one singular issue. As Gruss pointed out all of
the candidates have their pros and cons. I am not judging Obama on just
the religious issue. My concern is he has no experience, and although
there are
.
your post speaks for itself.
On 3/23/08, Bruce Sorge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, McCain's vote was the one that swayed everyone else to go to war.
> I keep forgetting that it only takes one vote in the senate to make
> something happen. I knew I should have stayed awake that day in
>
> GG wrote:
> and Presidents that should've sucked like LBJ who didn't.
DOH! LBJ sucked! I meant Truman.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Trial
http://ad.doubl
> Bruce wrote:
> Damn. Now I have to vote for him. I mean, ring tones? What better
> qualification than that to be president. And to think I was going to be
> silly enough to vote for someone with experience.
>
There is no "experience" that can prepare you for the job.
There are Presidents that
Yeah, McCain's vote was the one that swayed everyone else to go to war.
I keep forgetting that it only takes one vote in the senate to make
something happen. I knew I should have stayed awake that day in
government class instead of assuming that it takes a majority vote.
And what is this despai
experience in getting us into this mess :)
I am in favor of anyone engaging people in the political process, and
if they make me laugh along the way that's just fine. Letterman? I
applaud it. Ringtones? Heheh.
It seems to me that you are very reluctant to let go of your despair.
On Sun, Mar 23,
Damn. Now I have to vote for him. I mean, ring tones? What better
qualification than that to be president. And to think I was going to be
silly enough to vote for someone with experience.
Dana wrote:
> it's refreshing to see a candidate that has a clue
>
>
>
~
it's refreshing to see a candidate that has a clue
--
Be nice to the US or we'll bring democracy to your country!
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Trial
http://
69 matches
Mail list logo
