Is this fintstone...? - Page 2

Moneyguy1 · 05-19-2006, 10:56 PM

sn

A few of us have been around....Vietnam, or Gulf I or Bosnia, Gulf II or other less known places "of interest". And some have not strayed beyond the shores of the shining seas that surround our wondrous land....

It should not be difficult to place specific individuals in one or the other category.

I don't even pretend to know what is going on in the world..I don't even know the people three houses down!!!

fastpat · 05-20-2006, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by snbush67
Why do people in here actually pretend to believe that they actually know what is going on in the world, Do any of you have first hand experience in a war? or are you just forming opinions from your media experiences. Just a question.

PS fatpat have you ever left south carolina?

Asking about my experience with the world is a blind alley.

snbush67 · snbush67's Garage

Funny......I read my inital comment and realized it may have sounded somewhat insulting, it was not meant to be and I apologise if I offended anyone I really just meant it as a general comment. God Bless you all.

Jim Richards · 05-20-2006, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seahawk
My point was that the 'Nam reference is tired, very tired.

I can understand that it's been used a lot and it's from a war that ended a whopping 33 years ago; however, our current crop of civilian leaders failed to learn any lessons from it. I'm sure our military commanders learned those lessons...unfortunately they aren't running this war. Pity, it probably would've been done right.

fintstone · fintstone's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim Richards
.... I'm sure our military commanders learned those lessons...unfortunately they aren't running this war. Pity, it probably would've been done right.

Anyone that compares this war with Vietnam is intellectually dishonest...or deficient.

Commanders are running this war as much as commanders have ever done so in this country...actually more so.

It is simply amazing what folks post here.

Jim Richards · 05-20-2006, 03:30 PM

Right fint. You're usually good for the well-worn neo-con tripe.

fintstone · fintstone's Garage

Is there anything (factual) about the two that is similar?

Jim Richards · 05-20-2006, 04:01 PM

You claimed that comparing this war with Vietnam was intellectually dishonest...or deficient...an opinion offered without rationale. It's up to you to substantiate this claim of yours.

fintstone · fintstone's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim Richards
You claimed that comparing this war with Vietnam was intellectually dishonest...or deficient...an opinion offered without rationale. It's up to you to substantiate this claim of yours.

That is quite easy. I cannot think of any way they are similar, nor have I seen/heard of any serious argument that they were...

Clearly people would not make posts over and over that they are similar, yet be unable to post why...unless they were intellectually dishonest or deficient.

lendaddy · 05-20-2006, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim Richards
You claimed that comparing this war with Vietnam was intellectually dishonest...or deficient...an opinion offered without rationale. It's up to you to substantiate this claim of yours.

Being as objective as possible, the only similarity is that the public has lost it's will again.

fastpat · 05-20-2006, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lendaddy
Being as objective as possible, the only similarity is that the public has lost it's will again.

Support was never there in the first place. Anytime you have less than 90% of the population behind a government activity, you will have problems, increasing in scope and frequency, making continuing that activity more and more difficult, no matter what it is.

If anything, a war is harder and requires an even higher percentage of support.

In this particular event, the support was never more than 70-71% in the most optimistic polls, with it being well known that there was at least 30% firmly opposed and the middle 30% soft. That soft 30% is shifting towards opposition very rapidly, making over 56% of the population now opposed with rising numbers.

War was a bad idea from day one.

dd74 · 05-20-2006, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fastpat
Support was never there in the first place. Anytime you have less than 90% of the population behind a government activity, you will have problems, increasing in scope and frequency, making continuing that activity more and more difficult, no matter what it is.

In this particular event, the support was never more than 70-71% in the most optimistic polls...

War was a bad idea from day one.

I'm not certain you're correct about that 70% early on - I thought it was at or very close to 90% during the time of the State of The Union speech directly after 9/11. At that time, retribution was still very high on everyone's mind, and we were all fairly convinced that Iraq was a threat.

Yes, the war was a bad idea, but that was realized too late in the process toward the war itself.

CRH911S · 05-21-2006, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Anyone that compares this war with Vietnam is intellectually dishonest...or deficient.

fintstone, WMD-intellectually dishonest or deficient? The threat of communism-intellectually dishonest or deficient? There's actually more to compare than not and I bet this just scares the heck out of you. Since you're making the claim care to back it up? Otherwise just some wannabe jibberish.

Mulhollanddose · 05-21-2006, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CRH911S

fintstone, WMD-intellectually dishonest or deficient?

Neither: Saddam had them and, more importantly, planned on evolving them and using them. Clinton's foreign policy obviously crumbled on 9-11.

CRH911S · 05-21-2006, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Being as objective as possible, the only similarity is that the public has lost it's will again.

lenpuppy, at least during Nam when the generals asked for more troops they got them and that's where the dissimilarity ends.

CRH911S · 05-21-2006, 09:11 AM

OK ditto heads try this? Oil is the ultimate WMD.

Mulhollanddose · 05-21-2006, 09:16 AM

Oil is the fuel of our prosperity. Solutions to foreign dependency are continuously barred by Democrats (alternative fuels are currently a pipe-dream, a joke). Even today...Makes you wonder if the Democrats want the problem more than they want the solution.

lendaddy · 05-21-2006, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CRH911S

lenpuppy, at least during Nam when the generals asked for more troops they got them and that's where the dissimilarity ends.

K

fintstone · fintstone's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by CRH911S

fintstone, WMD-intellectually dishonest or deficient? The threat of communism-intellectually dishonest or deficient? There's actually more to compare than not and I bet this just scares the heck out of you. Since you're making the claim care to back it up? Otherwise just some wannabe jibberish.

I don't remember anything about Vietnam and WMD other than stories that the US used them (in the major US liberal media) that were later proved to be untrue.

Are you saying there is a threat that communist China will come to the side of the terrorists in Iraq?

What claim are you talking about? You guys are really funny. You liberals claim that the current peacekeeping mission in Iraq is somehow like the Vietnam War...but cannot seem to post an actual similarity...
And somehow I am supposed to refute the similarities that you cannot post?...That is even weaker than usual.

fintstone · fintstone's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by CRH911S

lenpuppy, at least during Nam when the generals asked for more troops they got them and that's where the dissimilarity ends.

Are there generals in Iraq that are asking for additional troops and not getting them? It is the first time I have heard this. Could you be more specific?