The Worst Administration Since Calgulia - Page 7

techweenie · techweenie's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
And exactly where in my posts did I EVER ask for your or anyone else's thanks?? I serve for my own personal reasons, certainly not to try and get "thanks" from an anonymous BBS.

It certainly does chafe, though, when you equate the people who are murdering innocents and killing my fellow servicemen to George Washington and Ben Franklin. And please, spare me the usual line about civilian casualties in war. There is a big difference (and as a self proclaimed former Army man you know this) between accidental or collateral civilian casualties and DELIBERATELY targeting civilians. By saying there is no difference, you are essentially calling myself and anyone in the service terrorists.

If you want to bash the war, fine. Hate the government or Bush? Great. Post away. I'll be happy to have a sane and friendly discussion about whatever you like. But when you equate al Qaeda to the founders of this nation and call myself and every other serviceman who has served over in the sandbox a terrorist, I get a bit riled.

Your paraphrasing is pretty loose here.

Al Quaeda is the enemy. Military decisions have taken this country off track and into Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11; nothing to do with al Quaeda.

In invading Iraq, we have killed tens of thousands of civilians. We have done so not to "protect our freedoms" but to do something GW Bush openly stated he wanted to do in 1999: get rid of Saddam. Polls in Iraq indicate that the majority of Iraqis want us gone. Some studies indicate the majority of those acting against our forces -- especially employing IEDs -- are doing so in retaliation for our invasion and/or killing their relatives (collateral).

Meantime, Bin Ladin is a hero to hundreds of millions around the world for thwarting our (ineffective) efforts to get him. Personally, I hope the Pakistan earthquake got him. That way he won't be a 'martyr.'

You can try to twist what I posted any way you want, but my original words are there for anyone to see. I didn't call our troops terrorists. But I did point out that the result of our invasion of Iraq is tens of thousands of dead civilians. That's a fact. And proportionately, it's equivalent to a quarter of a million US civilians being killed. I'm suggesting that you think about the implications for US leadership and security in the world following that kind of devastation.

Mulhollanddose · 10-21-2005, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tabs
The object of war is to kill your enemy...so who the fk cares if a Uranium bullet kills em...you want to inflict as much harm on your enemy so that he wants to quit. Get the idea, your not out to hug your enemy to death.

They hate America, tabs...Uranium is just a diversion...These are the same people who defend Islam and thought "Uncle Joe" wasn't such a bad guy...They are the enemy within, "useful idiots" in the words of Uncy Joe.

cool_chick · 10-21-2005, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Wow...I really don't know how to respond here. I knew that many on this board were pretty far to the left, but this really is amazing. To think that not only does Tech actually think that the founding fathers were terrorists on the level of al Qaeda but that others on the board would come to his defense and agree with him is flabbergasting. Not to mention Tech summing up my service to our country by calling me a crybaby. Unfortunately experiences like these are what make it difficult for many of us to take the left seriously at all.

What makes you think many on this board are "far to the left?" Do you even understand left/right idealogies?

Nathans_Dad · Nathans_Dad's Garage

I agree. Your posts speak for themselves. Oh by the way, you never answered the first question of the post. Since you seem to think that I am wallowing in self pity and begging for your approval of my service.

911pcars · 10-21-2005, 02:56 PM

For the many Republicans who have been deeply disappointed by GW's performance, I feel compelled to provide this link that describes his (and those with like minds) long-term strategy prior to 2000.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Someone on an earlier thread provided this. Thanks for whomever it was.

The question arises. What was it that created the rose-colored view of what he was about in the first place? It isn't as though he's made an about face in his positions. We can all learn from this in our choices for national leaders.

MHO,
Sherwood

1967 R50/2 · 10-21-2005, 04:07 PM

The new american century link is old hat.

I think what most of the republicans are ticked about is the out of hand spending. And that is spending not only on the Iraq war....that means spending on EVERYTHING.

911pcars · 10-21-2005, 04:22 PM

"The new american century link is old hat.

I think what most of the republicans are ticked about is the out of hand spending. And that is spending not only on the Iraq war....that means spending on EVERYTHING."

So money is the only thing that bothers them. Hmmm. That's disturbing too.

Sherwood

creaturecat · 10-22-2005, 04:26 PM

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by techweenie
Al Quaeda is the enemy. Military decisions have taken this country off track and into Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11; nothing to do with al Quaeda.

I don't think they were military decisions. They were financial ones, with risk/benefit analysis saying that the money spent in the war would be worth the return in investment.

Either than it was just a vendetta for past transgressions.

Might be a boon for some companies, but not for the average Joe.

tabs · 10-22-2005, 10:50 PM

I go with Vendetta.....unfinished biz from 1991....

I'm sorry I just can't get my head around Iraq....I've tried it every which way....Geo Political, Energy, Stabilty in the region...Greed....
it all just doesn't work...in light of the facts...

These guys gave us a sales pitch about WMD's and when that didn't jive with the facts after we took over the place they made up a new sales pitch...creating democracy and getting rid of a bad guy...BUT thats not bad enough they started to believe their own propaganda...the problem with Evangelicals or in this case the WH they become self righteous.

Ifn U boyz think Osama and his Al Qadea boyz are Religious nutcakes...you havn't met with GW and his WH crew...

tabs · 10-22-2005, 10:59 PM

I don't know I generally like GW....I think he is doing a pretty good job over all....alot of sobering events have hit under his watch....911 etc....and no he wasn't the cause of a lot of them...so get that silly idea outa your minds...fking Liberals....But it is just that they don't give a plausible explanation as to why they are doing the things they do...they are so opaque...and some of the things they have done defys gravity...and you don't defy gravity for long...

I do believe that the BK spending they have done was what has kept us from going in the tank...in other words they might be keeping the truth from us because the reality is so dire????

tabs · 10-22-2005, 11:01 PM

And the prospect of a Gore or kerry Presidency is was horrifying...better to have a Monkey in the WH then either of thsoe 2 dips....

fintstone · fintstone's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by tabs
..

These guys gave us a sales pitch about WMD's and when that didn't jive with the facts after we took over the place they made up a new sales pitch...creating democracy and getting rid of a bad guy...BUT thats not bad enough they started to believe their own propaganda...the problem with Evangelicals or in this case the WH they become self righteous.
...

The way I see it is: you have an old house. You think it has termites in the foundation. Everyone else thinks so. You call in experts to inspect...they the say it clearly has had termites, but they could all be gone...extreminated by the previous owner and the foundation already repaired (but there is no way to tell)...the inspectors cannot access the area to be sure unless you tear out the floor. The bad part is that if it has not been repaired and the termites exterminated...the results would be catastrophic and the house will fall in.
You decide not to take the risk and tear out the floor. You find no live termites, but some badly rotted timbers that are ready to collapse. Do you replace the floor without fixing the timbers (because it was not why you opened the floor) or repair the damage while you are in there?

creaturecat · 10-23-2005, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tabs
And the prospect of a Gore or kerry Presidency is was horrifying...better to have a Monkey in the WH then either of thsoe 2 dips....

careful with what you wish for!

Mulhollanddose · 10-23-2005, 05:21 PM

What is that smell?...I think I stepped in some canada.

fintstone · fintstone's Garage

They would make a website for Canadians to complain about their military and their country's leadership...if they had any of their own.

widebody911 · widebody911's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by fintstone
The way I see it is: you have an old house. You think it has termites in the foundation.

What you don't know is that the inspector is part owner of a flooring outfit and due to some arcane county ordinance, he will automatically get the contract. His brother-in-law has a concrete biz, and his dad runs an extermination outfit. He knows the house doesn't have termites because he did the job 10 years ago, but he and his buddies stand to make a *****load of cash if they can convince you they need to go in.

Shaun @ Tru6 · 10-23-2005, 06:46 PM

I don't understand why the homeowner would order new colonies of termites to be delivered to the worksite just after he burned his house down to get rid of them and new lumber had just been delivered for the rebuild.

fintstone · fintstone's Garage

Huh? You guys are analogy-impaired. You had better stick to things you understand...like monkey pictures, name calling, and bumper stickers.

Nathans_Dad · Nathans_Dad's Garage

Ok, now I get it! You guys seriously think that Bush lied to the country to get us to go to war. Let me clarify lied here so we can talk apples to apples. By lied I mean that everyone in his government and cabinet KNEW that there were no WMD in Iraq and told him this. The Bush decided, "Well, screw it. My buddies at Halliburton gotta get paid." Then proceeds to tell the country there are WMD in Iraq knowing full well there are none. Does that sum it up?

Personally, I agree that we went to Iraq on faulty info. But that is vastly different from lying. If the intelligence people told Bush "We are 99% sure there are WMD in Iraq but can't tell you for 100%", and Bush makes a move on that info, if the info was wrong that isn't lying. It's bad info, but that happens all the time. Witness Clinton sending Tomahawks into a deserted former terrorist camp or a "aspirin factory" (which probably was a bio-lab, but that's another discussion).

So, time to nail you guys down on this...by my definition of lying, do you really think Bush lied?