The Iraq / war on terror thread

[Booker Floyd]

maybe you notice I may be the only one here who doesnt post someone elses words to help relay my thoughts.
Or substantiate what I feel.

 

Perhaps you forgot about this post of yours...It was your big return to the forum after "retiring" at the threat of being banned.? And perhaps youre hostility to citing sources is because this essay you posted was wrongly credited?

I have to ask, why do you keep avoiding my posts?

You can address this post when you get a moment.

[Izzy]

I have to ask, why do you keep avoiding my posts?

Could it be that he has no idea how to counter your points?

Personnaly i think its because the asylum staff don't give him enough time with the computer to finish posting - there, there Shades, they have your best interests at heart

[pilferk]

maybe you notice I may be the only one here who doesnt post someone elses words to help relay my thoughts.
Or substantiate what I feel.
You seem to need a 'source' for everything. like a child with his blanky.

So, in other words, you don't believe in proof.? Good enough.? Lets us all know what we're dealing with.? Bullshit and misdirection, and opinions founded on same.

As for my need for a source: What, we should just trust YOU?? After all the times you've been proven incorrect?? Yeah, OK.

It's not a wonder you support this war.? You treat the concept of "proof" and "evidence" much the same way this administration did in relation to WMD's.
 

My thoughts and views are a compilation of everything I take in, from where it comes I give very little of my memory to.
I do my filtering at the time I take it in.

LOL.? So uniformed or not, your opinions are your opinions.? How mighty closed minded of you.

I count 7 insults, all kinda girly but insults nontheless in your last post.
So lets not pot kettle black.

There you go again.? Droll, juvenile...pretty? much what we've come to expect.
And you can't count, either.? Nor do you seem to know what hurling an insult is.

My bitch comment came directly after you calling me a troll.
And thats exactly how I react when someone confronts me that way in person.
which you wouldnt do of course.

And you need work on your reading comprehension.? I said "In most forums you would have been labeled a troll by now".? THEN I said we just don't take you seriously.? We don't and you're quickly approaching the "troll" moniker, even here.?

As for confronting you in person...we're back to your inability to make a coherent point and falling back on threats.? Same game, same bullshit, same misdirection.

My views on this war are derived from the events leading up to it.
Changing my mind now that we are there would not only insult those fighting but would be a personal
insult to myself on those grounds.

Once again, mightly closed minded of you.? And once again, thanks for the insight into your posts.

My grandfather use to tell me when I walked up on him working.
"Either help, offer a better way to do it, or get out of the way"

My grandfather used to tell me something too:
"If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....it's probably a duck".

It's quickly becoming apparent who and what the duck is.

[pilferk]

I have to ask, why do you keep avoiding my posts?

Could it be that he has no idea how to counter your points?

Of course it is.?

That, and it's becoming more and more apparent he's really just a troll.?

I predict, in the very near future, his posts are met much the same way Walk's are now met:? With a stunning blast of silence.

[sandman]

It is your argument that makes no sense. Any other time that the US was at war during the time of the draft, if you were between the ages of 18-35, if you were able-bodied, you had to go. Students and the privileged (like Bush and Cheney) got off, but non-students and working class middle-American kids had to go. No one gave a damn what your personal considerations were. The cop analogy is weak. We have enough cops for that to be a voluntary profession, whereas the military is in short supply and recruiters are not meeting their quota. We need to fight for freedom and democracy after all...

And you still have yet to answer my original question.?Saying you believe in a war and then not fighting in it, while giving some lame cop analogy doesn't cut it buster.

What point are you trying to make? You want to suggest I?m a hypocrite? You want to call me a pussy? Be a fuckin man and just say what?s on your mind.

I?m making a simple point and you just don?t get it. I don?t share very much personal information about myself on public message boards. And no one should be asked to give details like that. And the fact that you can?t understand that speaks volumes.

And you started talking in circles when you mentioned ?voluntary profession?. I don?t think I have to spell it out for you, but ?you really didn?t make a point there.

I never called you any names at all, nor was I speaking to you directly, so don't put words in my mouth or twist anything I said. And no one is asking you to post any personal information about yourself on the board. Two things you pulled out of the air.

When I first posed the question, I was speaking of my disdain for armchair warriors in general. It is you that made it personal and accused me of calling you a "hypocrite" and a "pussy."

The police force has always been a voluntary profession. During the draft, having to fight in a war was not. I am very well aware that we no longer have a draft.

like i said, your original comment/question is un-american.

and there are plenty of far left wing nuts (including some on this board), who were FOR the war in afghanistan, but did not enlist to fight in it.

and i wouldn't stoop so low as to question why they didn't.

seriously bro, get a fuckin clue.

[RichardNixon]

It is your argument that makes no sense. Any other time that the US was at war during the time of the draft, if you were between the ages of 18-35, if you were able-bodied, you had to go. Students and the privileged (like Bush and Cheney) got off, but non-students and working class middle-American kids had to go. No one gave a damn what your personal considerations were. The cop analogy is weak. We have enough cops for that to be a voluntary profession, whereas the military is in short supply and recruiters are not meeting their quota. We need to fight for freedom and democracy after all...

And you still have yet to answer my original question.?Saying you believe in a war and then not fighting in it, while giving some lame cop analogy doesn't cut it buster.

What point are you trying to make? You want to suggest I?m a hypocrite? You want to call me a pussy? Be a fuckin man and just say what?s on your mind.

I?m making a simple point and you just don?t get it. I don?t share very much personal information about myself on public message boards. And no one should be asked to give details like that. And the fact that you can?t understand that speaks volumes.

And you started talking in circles when you mentioned ?voluntary profession?. I don?t think I have to spell it out for you, but ?you really didn?t make a point there.

I never called you any names at all, nor was I speaking to you directly, so don't put words in my mouth or twist anything I said. And no one is asking you to post any personal information about yourself on the board. Two things you pulled out of the air.

When I first posed the question, I was speaking of my disdain for armchair warriors in general. It is you that made it personal and accused me of calling you a "hypocrite" and a "pussy."

The police force has always been a voluntary profession. During the draft, having to fight in a war was not. I am very well aware that we no longer have a draft.

like i said, your original comment/question is un-american.

and there are plenty of far left wing nuts (including some on this board), who were FOR the war in afghanistan, but did not enlist to fight in it.

and i wouldn't stoop so low as to question why they didn't.

seriously bro, get a fuckin clue.

No question asked in our great Republic is "unAmerican." It is unAmerican to call a question being asked "unAmerican." "Bro."

[Booker Floyd]

I will continue to ask Shades to address my post...

Some other unanswered questions...

For Charity Case: Jack Murtha has 37 years of honorable military service, including Korea and Vietnam, visits Iraq, and regularly speaks to military leaders and Iraqi veterans.  Can you tell me what "clue" you have that he doesnt?

For GnRFL: His quote:

I value Lieberman's opinion much more than Murtha since Liberman actually went there and has a first hand account to base his statement on.

You might want to send a correction to the author of this Post-Gazette article:

"His many visits to Iraq, he said, had convinced him that Iraqis want U.S. soldiers to leave. "

Heres the authors e-mail: mailto:mreston@nationalpress.com.

...But what if its true?  I suppose that means you value Murthas opinion since its a first-hand account?

And D can just quote and address this post.

[Prometheus]

totaly side stepping direct questions....... do we really have to go to grade school and wish something at teh time scary upon you to get you to answer if not it will get ya?

yet you talk about your own views... and cant answer a direct question without walking around in circles and calling others off..........

[SLCPUNK]

I will continue to ask Shades to address my post...

Some other unanswered questions...

For Charity Case: Jack Murtha has 37 years of honorable military service, including Korea and Vietnam, visits Iraq, and regularly speaks to military leaders and Iraqi veterans.  Can you tell me what "clue" you have that he doesnt?

For GnRFL: His quote:

I value Lieberman's opinion much more than Murtha since Liberman actually went there and has a first hand account to base his statement on.

You might want to send a correction to the author of this Post-Gazette article:

"His many visits to Iraq, he said, had convinced him that Iraqis want U.S. soldiers to leave. "

Heres the authors e-mail: mailto:mreston@nationalpress.com.

...But what if its true?  I suppose that means you value Murthas opinion since its a first-hand account?

And D can just quote and address this post.

While you are at it, Charity Case are you going to answer my question either?

 

[Jamie]

I dont know what I want but I know what I dont want.
Sounds like a woman

And on top of all that you throw in a sexist comment and still give no evidence to support your claim that Bin Laden is dead.

[Guns N RockMusic]

Jamie if you're really worried about sexist comments you should check some of the recent posts of your friend Izzy.

[Jamie]

Jamie if you're really worried about sexist comments you should check some of the recent posts of your friend Izzy.

Which ones?

[Guns N RockMusic]

Jamie if you're really worried about sexist comments you should check some of the recent posts of your friend Izzy.

Which ones?

How about this one for starters: http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=23842.msg426532#msg426532

[SLCPUNK]

Jamie if you're really worried about sexist comments you should check some of the recent posts of your friend Izzy.

Which ones?

How about this one for starters: http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=23842.msg426532#msg426532

As usual, that is quite a stretch. You guys are a desperate, pathetic group of liars.

[Jamie]

Jamie if you're really worried about sexist comments you should check some of the recent posts of your friend Izzy.

Which ones?

How about this one for starters: http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=23842.msg426532#msg426532

Well, I believe statements like that are unnacceptable, as any other statements that are in any way sexist, and I stand by my claim that Shade's comment was also sexist. Which you seem to disregard because of your common belief system. I have admitted that I believe a comment made by someone who, largely, shares my belief system was wrong. And I believe you should too. Shades made a sexist comment, no denying it.

[SLCPUNK]

Well, I believe statements like that are unnacceptable, as any other statements that are in any way sexist, and I stand by my claim that Shade's comment was also sexist. Which you seem to disregard because of your common belief system. I have admitted that I believe a comment made by someone who, largely, shares my belief system was wrong. And I believe you should too. Shades made a sexist comment, no denying it.

Shades made a few sexist comments. But I don't believe Izzy's comment was in the same category at that by any means, it was not thrown out as an insult, or degrading to women.

[Guns N RockMusic]

Well, I believe statements like that are unnacceptable, as any other statements that are in any way sexist, and I stand by my claim that Shade's comment was also sexist. Which you seem to disregard because of your common belief system. I have admitted that I believe a comment made by someone who, largely, shares my belief system was wrong. And I believe you should too. Shades made a sexist comment, no denying it.

Shades made a few sexist comments. But I don't believe Izzy's comment was in the same category at that by any means, it was not thrown out as an insult, or degrading to women.

true, Shades made a small insult towards women while Izzy advocated systematic discrimination against women.  I agree wholeheartedly that Izzy's comment was not in the same category.

[shades]

Im not making sexist comments.
Women act like women
God love them and every one of their nuances.

Men act like men, in most circles.

[Booker Floyd]

Im not making sexist comments.
Women act like women
God love them and every one of their nuances.

Men act like men, in most circles.

Still dodging the post?

[Prometheus]

The Nobel Prize in Literature 2005
"who in his plays uncovers the precipice under everyday prattle and forces entry into oppression's closed rooms"

Harold Pinter ? Nobel Lecture
 Excerpts

....

I was present at a meeting at the US embassy in London in the late 1980s.

The United States Congress was about to decide whether to give more money to the Contras in their campaign against the state of Nicaragua.
I was a member of a delegation speaking on behalf of Nicaragua but the most important member of this delegation was a Father John Metcalf.
The leader of the US body was Raymond Seitz (then number two to the ambassador, later ambassador himself). Father Metcalf said: 'Sir, I am in charge of a parish in the north of Nicaragua. My parishioners built a school, a health centre, a cultural centre. We have lived in peace.
A few months ago a Contra force attacked the parish. They destroyed
everything: the school, the health centre, the cultural centre. They raped nurses and teachers, slaughtered doctors, in the most brutal manner. They behaved like savages. Please demand that the US government withdraw its support from this shocking terrorist activity.'

Raymond Seitz had a very good reputation as a rational, responsible and highly sophisticated man. He was greatly respected in diplomatic circles. He listened, paused and then spoke with some gravity.
'Father,' he said, 'let me tell you something. In war, innocent people always suffer.' There was a frozen silence. We stared at him. He did not flinch.

Innocent people, indeed, always suffer.

Finally somebody said: 'But in this case "innocent people" were the victims of a gruesome atrocity subsidised by your government, one among many. If Congress allows the Contras more money further atrocities of this kind will take place. Is this not the case? Is your government not therefore guilty of supporting acts of murder and destruction upon the citizens of a sovereign state?'

Seitz was imperturbable. 'I don't agree that the facts as presented support your assertions,' he said.

As we were leaving the Embassy a US aide told me that he enjoyed my plays. I did not reply.

I should remind you that at the time President Reagan made the following statement: 'The Contras are the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.'

The United States supported the brutal Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua for over 40 years. The Nicaraguan people, led by the Sandinistas, overthrew this regime in 1979, a breathtaking popular revolution.

The Sandinistas weren't perfect. They possessed their fair share of arrogance and their political philosophy contained a number of contradictory elements. But they were intelligent, rational and civilised. They set out to establish a stable, decent, pluralistic society. The death penalty was abolished. Hundreds of thousands of poverty-stricken peasants were brought back from the dead. Over 100,000 families were given title to land. Two thousand schools were built. A quite remarkable literacy campaign reduced illiteracy in the country to less than one seventh. Free education was established and a free health service. Infant mortality was reduced by a third. Polio was eradicated.

The United States denounced these achievements as Marxist/Leninist subversion. In the view of the US government, a dangerous example was being set. If Nicaragua was allowed to establish basic norms of social and economic justice, if it was allowed to raise the standards of health care and education and achieve social unity and national self respect, neighbouring countries would ask the same questions and do the same things. There was of course at the time fierce resistance to the status quo in El Salvador.

I spoke earlier about 'a tapestry of lies' which surrounds us.
President Reagan commonly described Nicaragua as a 'totalitarian dungeon'. This was taken generally by the media, and certainly by the British government, as accurate and fair comment. But there was in fact no record of death squads under the Sandinista government. There was no record of torture. There was no record of systematic or official military brutality. No priests were ever murdered in Nicaragua. There were in fact three priests in the government, two Jesuits and a Maryknoll missionary. The totalitarian dungeons were actually next door, in El Salvador and Guatemala. The United States had brought down the democratically elected government of Guatemala in
1954 and it is estimated that over 200,000 people had been victims of successive military dictatorships.

Six of the most distinguished Jesuits in the world were viciously murdered at the Central American University in San Salvador in 1989 by a battalion of the Alcatl regiment trained at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. That extremely brave man Archbishop Romero was assassinated while saying mass. It is estimated that 75,000 people died. Why were they killed? They were killed because they believed a better life was possible and should be achieved. That belief immediately qualified them as communists. They died because they dared to question the status quo, the endless plateau of poverty, disease, degradation and oppression, which had been their birthright.