marolyn Posted February 9, 2009 Author Share Posted February 9, 2009 Some soldiers may not believe in the war, but they're still volunteering (and acknowledging that they may fight and die) to serve their country when it's in need. So what's your point? c'mon wanna-be...you are usually not that thick...read my post...my point is clear...but if you need it spelled out yet again...the majority of soldiers in iraq are being "ordered" to go there...not volunteering... and to you also, i extend an invitation to join...the military is in dire need of volunteers to go to iraq...for every volunteer going over there, potentially saves one who does not support the iraq war from having to...what are you waiting for?...you do love america, don't you?...pretty please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 c'mon wanna-be...you are usually not that thick...read my post...my point is clear...but if you need it spelled out yet again...the majority of soldiers in iraq are being "ordered" to go there...not volunteering... Of course they're being ordered there marolyn. Soldiers don't decide where they go. You think the soldiers in Normandy signed up for an experience like Omaha Beach? Of course not. But when the Generals say "move out", you say "where to"? That being said, when you sign up for the military, you accept that their is a chance of going to Iraq or Afghanistan, as opposed to a military base in Germany or Japan. I'm quite positive most recruits understand and accept that fact, do you not agree? and to you also, i extend an invitation to join...the military is in dire need of volunteers to go to iraq...for every volunteer going over there, potentially saves one who does not support the iraq war from having to...what are you waiting for?...you do love america, don't you?...pretty please? You know I'm not a big supporter of the war right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 and to you also, i extend an invitation to join...the military is in dire need of volunteers to go to iraq...for every volunteer going over there, potentially saves one who does not support the iraq war from having to...what are you waiting for?...you do love america, don't you?...pretty please? Aaaahhhh, it's the standard liberal "chicken-hawk" accusation. "If you like the war so much why don't YOU go there?" It's such a mature and well-reasoned response. It reminds me of being on the school playground when I got into some random argument and defended a particular person or thing and the response was "well if you like it/him/her so much, why don't you marry it/him/her?" Lemme guess, marolyn - during the past 6 years you "supported our military, just not it's mission?" And we needed to be "working to protect our brave soldiers and not put them in harm's way?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigstickbonzo Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 during the past 6 years you "supported our military, just not it's mission?" Their objective was never made clear to them. Nearly a dozen generals resigned because of this. And we needed to be "working to protect our brave soldiers and not put them in harm's way?" Considering Cheney and Rummy sent our boys and gals over there without proper armor and supplies and basically said, "Oh well," I'd say that statement really shoots the gamer in the foot. Go on..call me a liberal. I dare ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Go on..call me a liberal. I dare ya. Fine, you're a classical liberal What now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigstickbonzo Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Fine, you're a classical liberal What now? Death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Death. Right on brother Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docron Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 congrats on that job...obviously it does not require that you pay attention to detail... if you possessed that skill, you would have understood from docron's comments above that he assumes a) all of the soldiers in iraq volunteered to be in iraq and b ) all of the soldiers there believe in the iraq war... simply not true... if you claim to be a "supporter" of the iraq war, i suggest you also request some tdy over there... They volunteered to be in the military knowing full well that they were signing themselves over to the government. Regarding those in the service who do not believe in the Iraq War but are "forced" to serve there anyways: It is not my (or Bush's) fault these men and women initially trusted their government enough to believe they would never be called into a questionable war, willingly sign up for the military, and down the road find themselves to be in that exact predicament. They're all adults, and should have known the risks that come with foregoing their rights to become property of said government. Again, I never said I didn't appreciate them, and I never said it was right... but it is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrum Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 This thread should last at least 4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Their objective was never made clear to them. Nearly a dozen generals resigned because of this. My responses addressed enlisted soldiers and their expectations. Considering Cheney and Rummy sent our boys and gals over there without proper armor and supplies and basically said, "Oh well," I'd say that statement really shoots the gamer in the foot. Could you possibly paint with a broader brush? So we had 200,000 -odd troops over there wearing windbreakers and eating PBJ sammiches? Because there were incidences of out-of-date body armor and poorly armored ground vehicles, you assign that to the entire mission? Because you're sorely mistaken if you do. Those were logistical errors that were addressed, but trying to portray the entire operation as ill-equipped is grossly inaccurate. Go on..call me a liberal. I dare ya. You label yourself with all the hackneyed liberal generalizations you're tossing out there. I know from experience you're not particularly liberal, other than your well-documented hard-on for W, Cheney, et al. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 And does anyone really think that military personnel who enlisted in the 90s (pre-9/11) were surprised when we went into the middle east? Ask anyone who was serving during that time and they'll tell you they all knew which places were most likely to become military actions, whether all-out declared war or not. It's common knowledge where they most likely could end up AT ANY TIME, with much less provocation than the enormity of 9/11. 9/11 just cast it in stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 My responses addressed enlisted soldiers and their expectations. What were these expectations? What were the Generals, the leaders of the Military told about mission objectives? Go find Hussein? You label yourself with all the hackneyed liberal generalizations you're tossing out there. I know from experience you're not particularly liberal, other than your well-documented hard-on for W, Cheney, et al. Where has he ever shown himself to be liberal at all? Not supporting Bush and Cheney is hardly liberal. With the amount of money they spent on increasing the size of government, how could they possibly be considered all that conservative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marolyn Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 They volunteered to be in the military knowing full well that they were signing themselves over to the government. Regarding those in the service who do not believe in the Iraq War but are "forced" to serve there anyways: It is not my (or Bush's) fault these men and women initially trusted their government enough to believe they would never be called into a questionable war, willingly sign up for the military, and down the road find themselves to be in that exact predicament. They're all adults, and should have known the risks that come with foregoing their rights to become property of said government. Again, I never said I didn't appreciate them, and I never said it was right... but it is what it is. so, now back to your original statement, it appears you now acknowledge that there are service members over there that do not support bush's lie...good, mission accomplished!!! hate to see that myth perpetuated... as far as them trusting their government with their lives...you are correct that they do...they trust that their government will use them in a manner that represents the ideals that america stands for... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marolyn Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 ahhh....i'm making progress... the majority of the military signed up before the iraq war... sure...but that does not preclude you from serving your country... iraq may have deterred many, but there is so much more you can do...(besides, obama is moving to remove that deterrent) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docron Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 so, now back to your original statement, it appears you now acknowledge that there are service members over there that do not support bush's lie...good, mission accomplished!!! hate to see that myth perpetuated... as far as them trusting their government with their lives...you are correct that they do...they trust that their government will use them in a manner that represents the ideals that america stands for... I worded it wrong the first time, I will give you that. As for the ones who do not support it... they have that choice, sure. However, they are government property, and I just cannot understand how the government is in the wrong because of what they have their property do? Metaphor time: Say on a given day I have bad breath and I put my toothbrush into my mouth to clean it. My toothbrush happens to not agree with what I ate that day, and I can understand that, but was it wrong for me to brush my teeth that day? Hell-no! I used my property for what it was meant to do, no matter the circumstances. When I was on the market for a new brush, it was on the rack at the store along with all the rest, and toothbrushes were meant to clean mouths. Nowhere on the package is an asterisk saying "I only clean morally correct mouths". It is not my fault that I happened to pick the one off the rack who happened to like cleaning mouths but hates bad breath. I was under the impression that all of them would clean mouths no questions asked. So what if I had great breath on the day I picked it up... it can go back all it wants later when I get bad breath and say, "I had no idea you were gonna make me do this!".., but it should have known people have a track record of sometimes having bad breath. People should not hate me because of it. Why aren't people mad at the thing that gave me the bad breath rather than being mad at me for trying to correct my bad breath? Seems to me that people are totally missing the root cause. You're mad at Bush and not Iraq. What the fuck? Last I checked it was Iraq that had the dictator and the people who needed to be liberated.., not us! Now it's 5 am. Undoubtedly I will come back tomorrow and re-read this only to find it probably will not make sense at that time and have 10 people tell me I am wrong.. but I will edit it tomorrow if that's the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 What were these expectations? What were the Generals, the leaders of the Military told about mission objectives? Go find Hussein? Again, I wasn't addressing the upper echelon of military leadership, as that gets into the political realm, differing views on how best to accomplish the objective. Marolyn commented on the people who enlisted and their expectations, which you yourself addressed pretty succinctly - you go/do what you're told to do. No surprises there. Where has he ever shown himself to be liberal at all? Not supporting Bush and Cheney is hardly liberal. With the amount of money they spent on increasing the size of government, how could they possibly be considered all that conservative? But the old, time-worn bashing with broad sketchy generalizations IS a liberal characteristic, which is what he did with the "poorly-equipped" comment. There are many issues that define conservative besides spending and size of government. If anything, Bush wasn't a good Republican, with his spending and size of government. Frankly, I believe it was part of his tendency to appease the opposition by agreeing to massive spending. But overall, he was a decent conservative, in that he brought in good conservative Supreme Court justices, and upheld (for the most part) many other conservative (religious) values. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmie ray Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 When asked if he thought if any Middle East countries have nuclear weapons, he kind of side stepped it. I don't know if he understood what that old bag asked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bong-Man Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Wow ! A President who is articulate, can hold a conversation, and intelligently speak his position....whether you agree with him or not. And this follows a President that had fewer press conferences than any in modern history.....and to top it off, he preserved the 9pm prime time line-up to boot ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cryingbluerain Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I watched the president last night and he just doesn't get it. He spoke of a small faction of people that would have the government step aside and let the free market right itself. He then dismissed that notion as folly saying something about proof that government intervention works was demonstrated with FDR's New Deal. That's really a joke because FDR’s New Deal policies and their irresponsible offspring as time went on contributed immensely to the problems we have now. In a free system, one without endless government guarantees and phony safety nets, businesses that fail simply cease to exist and healthy ones rise up to replace them. Yes, there's some pain involved with that process but none so bad as the painful 'adjustment' we're facing over the next few years. Our constitution wasn't written and our government was never designed to be all things to all people. But that's what people have come to expect and FDR is the granddaddy of the present-day welfare state in this country both for business and individuals. And even though the folks in Washington have hidden the cost of this free-for-all for many years, it's time to pay up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I watched the president last night and he just doesn't get it. He spoke of a small faction of people that would have the government step aside and let the free market right itself. He then dismissed that notion as folly saying something about proof that government intervention works was demonstrated with FDR's New Deal. That's really a joke because FDR’s New Deal policies and their irresponsible offspring as time went on contributed immensely to the problems we have now. In a free system, one without endless government guarantees and phony safety nets, businesses that fail simply cease to exist and healthy ones rise up to replace them. Yes, there's some pain involved with that process but none so bad as the painful 'adjustment' we're facing over the next few years. Our constitution wasn't written and our government was never designed to be all things to all people. But that's what people have come to expect and FDR is the granddaddy of the present-day welfare state in this country both for business and individuals. And even though the folks in Washington have hidden the cost of this free-for-all for many years, it's time to pay up. Liked your post. I jsut wondering. Why is he pushing this bill so much. If you knock 300 billion off this bill, every G.O.P. will vote for it. Obama says that 800 Billion is the amount needed. Fine, throw some more money in for us. $500 is not going to cut it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigstickbonzo Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 And even though the folks in Washington have hidden the cost of this free-for-all for many years, it's time to pay up. Isn't that Obama's point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigstickbonzo Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 My responses addressed enlisted soldiers and their expectations. Your responses were fruitless and misguided at best. The military has seen a continuous shuffling of enlistment since the war(s) began, but there have been an incredible shortage of enlistments too. Common people willing to die for our country, even those who support Iraq or Afghanistan, are still hestitant to serve when our mission isn't exactly clear. Someone referenced the soldier's code, which is absolutely correct. However, when our generals don't have a proper order of execution or actual plans of engagement or entitlement because of political turmoil, I think it's time you question the leadership in Washington before sending troops into a battlezone without any real strategy for a positive outcome. And for you knuckleheads (that's for whoever is in charge of our Armed Forces) Could you possibly paint with a broader brush? So we had 200,000 -odd troops over there wearing windbreakers and eating PBJ sammiches? Because there were incidences of out-of-date body armor and poorly armored ground vehicles, you assign that to the entire mission? Because you're sorely mistaken if you do. Those were logistical errors that were addressed, but trying to portray the entire operation as ill-equipped is grossly inaccurate. By Cheney and Rummy's own tesitmonies in 2003 when asked about this. The body armor, the Humvees? They were not isolated incidents. There was a great piece on 60 Minutes in late 2003 about how troops had to find scrap metal in the streets of Iraqi towns and weld them to their jeeps and transport units because they were so ill-armored and too many soldiers were being maimed or killed by IEDs. The entire Iraq operation has been ill-equipped. Read a book. Franks wanted 350,000-500,000 ground troops for the invasion. Rummy wanted 25,000. That's absolutely ludacris. And as I've said numerous times, Schwarzkopf, our best living military mind, said from Day 1 this war is wrong and it will cripple our military and our country for a long time. Why? Because he knew who was in charge and why they were going over in the first place. You label yourself with all the hackneyed liberal generalizations you're tossing out there. I know from experience you're not particularly liberal, other than your well-documented hard-on for W, Cheney, et al. The fact that you're so hung up on "liberals" and their "generalizations" makes me question any real common sense in that beanpod you call a noggin. Bush wasn't a conservative you fuckhead. He was more liberal than Clinton on some issues. The Republican Party simply backed Bush because he was making them money and stuck by their biggest party-funding asset, religion. Again, I wasn't addressing the upper echelon of military leadership, as that gets into the political realm, differing views on how best to accomplish the objective. Marolyn commented on the people who enlisted and their expectations, which you yourself addressed pretty succinctly - you go/do what you're told to do. No surprises there. The difference is we know who we have to get in Afghanistan. We never knew whose side we were on in Iraq. Originally, we fought alongside the Shiites against the Sunnis. Then we changed sides and fought alongside the Sunnis against the Shiites, throwing millions in American tax-payer dollars onto the streets to bargain our newest alley for however long it could last. It was little surprise when both sides were fed up with us and still are. The violence has subsided because the money finally went to the right place. A military surge was a factor, but it's very naive of anyone to think a money transaction was not the real reason for the calming of violence. But the old, time-worn bashing with broad sketchy generalizations IS a liberal characteristic, which is what he did with the "poorly-equipped" comment. There are many issues that define conservative besides spending and size of government. If anything, Bush wasn't a good Republican, with his spending and size of government. Frankly, I believe it was part of his tendency to appease the opposition by agreeing to massive spending. But overall, he was a decent conservative, in that he brought in good conservative Supreme Court justices, and upheld (for the most part) many other conservative (religious) values. It's common sense, not "liberal generalizations." Perhaps..and this is just an idea...you'd be better suited to discuss politics and bash your head against the wall like the rest of us if you actually knew what the fuck you were talking about. Perhaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bong-Man Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Lol......Young Republicans going back to pre-WW2 for political ammunition just cracks me up. Here's a pic from 1937.....which side would you be on ? I hate to remind you, but 99% of your grandfathers would have their heads bashed in. You'd also swear this board was filled with small business owners on the cutting edge of entrepreneurship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docron Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I watched the president last night and he just doesn't get it. He spoke of a small faction of people that would have the government step aside and let the free market right itself. He then dismissed that notion as folly saying something about proof that government intervention works was demonstrated with FDR's New Deal. That's really a joke because FDR’s New Deal policies and their irresponsible offspring as time went on contributed immensely to the problems we have now. In a free system, one without endless government guarantees and phony safety nets, businesses that fail simply cease to exist and healthy ones rise up to replace them. Yes, there's some pain involved with that process but none so bad as the painful 'adjustment' we're facing over the next few years. Our constitution wasn't written and our government was never designed to be all things to all people. But that's what people have come to expect and FDR is the granddaddy of the present-day welfare state in this country both for business and individuals. And even though the folks in Washington have hidden the cost of this free-for-all for many years, it's time to pay up. I agree to some extent, but I disagree as well. Take market crashes for example. Oct. 28, 1929: loss of 12.82% (down 39.33 points) (ranked 2nd-worst loss) Oct. 19, 1987: loss of 22.61% (down 508.00 points) (ranked 1st-worst loss) Sept. 29, 2008: loss of 6.98% (down 777.68 points) (ranked 17th-worst loss) The economy is bad right now, but its been worse 17 times and obviously you've all still got enough money to afford internet and a computer... so quit freaking out for a second. The current state of things pales in comparison to the millions who were broke and starved for years and years after the 1929 crash. After the 1929 crash, the market didn't rise above it's 1929 high till sometime in 1954... 25 years after the crash. The reason the 1929 market wouldn't see another record high till 1954 wasn't because of a bill... it was because of the lack thereof, and it was because investors didn't trust the market. In the years leading up to the crash, everyone was getting comfortable with rapid expansion, and everyone planned accordingly. No one planned for the bottom to ever fall out, not even the government... then the market bottomed out and everyone panic-sold their stocks. The slow recovery in the years that followed were due to people being pessimistic. Everyone was trying to sell and nobody was trying to buy... put simply, people weren't consuming their asses off like they were in the years leading up to the depression... supply and demand really. The lack of government fail-safes and reluctancy to intervene in the market is what killed the peoples trust in the economy and what made the recovery so drawn out. The rapid recovery of the market in 1987, on the other hand, was attributed to swift action by the government Federal Reserve... letting consumers maintain their confidence in the market. Unlike 1929, the market would reach new record-highs in less than 2 years, before the end of 1989. In actuality, I'd be hard pressed to find anyone who even remembers that this happened, the worst crash EVER... that's how much the government helped. Government action in 1987? Federal deposit insurance, unemployment insurance, Social Security insurance and other elements of what has come to be known as "the safety net". These not only guarantee against widespread destitution, but their very existence should also help to prevent the kind of financial panic that fed on itself in the 1929 depression. In 1929 there was no such thing as insurance of bank deposits, you didn't have the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and you had much less knowledge of how the economy worked. Would you rather make NO money at all for 25-30 years... or would you rather spend money right away so you can be making money again in 2 years? I'm with you in that it just adds to the national debt in the long run, but there are plenty of other ways to cut that... definitely none of them include stepping out in the time of crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bong-Man Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 ^ ^ Nice post. Also, the depression was surrounded by another small problem called "The Dust Bowl". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.