Alberto Gonzalez

[ghostofdavid]

When a man joins the military, it is for serving the country. The politician is seemingly abusing that honorable service and sacrifice that the citizen-soldier has taken upon his self. I have yet to encounter someone who has joined the military so that he can serve the big interests of big companies, if you believe that is what the war is about.

If a man supports the war and doesn't go, that doesn't make him a hypocrite, it makes him an active participant in the American (Read: US American) government system and process. Our armed forces is volunteer (except in drafting) and by our founding father's principles it should always remain as such. Don't like registering for the draft? Don't do it. As Americans, we allow our citizens to not sign up. Don't expect government aide for refusing to sign up and expect jail time during war drafting service. If you really drafted war-service, always remember that you can pull C.O. duty.

What did Voltaire say about not agreeing with a man, but dying for the right to allow the man to speak disagreeable opinions? I really like that.

I do not wish to get into the discussion of Dem Vs. Repub except to say that both of them are wrong and will continue to be wrong as long as they serve themselves and their own parties versus serving the American People as they were elected to do.

I know how to criticize the problem, but I do not think I know how to fix it without an armed revolution. If only modern liberals were much less terrified of firearms (READ: BLATANT UNAPOLOGETIC GENERALIZATION).

[The King]

The war would have never happened without our elected politicians (republicans
Edit: Why aren't politicians held to the same standards as police officers? If you accept anything in the way of a gratuity, your ass is out.

Also, I should just add, WWII lasted from December 1941 until June 1945...we took back entire continents from countries with a lot more on the ball than Iraq ever has had.

Joining the military isn't about serving this country, its about serving business interests that at best do nothing for this country.

1st, police officers have way too low of standards IMO... i'd rather pay more taxes to pay the police more so that there are more people trying to become them, and set higher standards... theres a lot of really bad poloice officers... just like a lot of bad politicians.

2nd, you said earlier that it was stupid to compare WW2 to Iraq ... i said pretty much the same thing you said earlier... this is not being fought as a war... if it was, it would be done by now... we're not eliminating the enemy...were just marching into cities like retards because we have to be so nice to make sure no civilians are killed... but they are offing themselves like crazy anyways. This isn't a war on iraq, its against the terrorists inside iraq, which is too bad because its a lot easier to win when everyones attacking and you don't have to worry about who is in the way... But these iraqi soldiers would rather risk their women and children lives then their own. There's really no easy way to win, your right...

3rd, im hoping that when you say joining the military is about business interests you are criticizing how the war benefits certain companies, and not criticizing soldiers... because there is no reason, pro war or against it, to blame soldiers

Last, Many, many democrats voted to go to war, john kerry included...

[Sonthert]

The war would have never happened without our elected politicians (republicans
Edit: Why aren't politicians held to the same standards as police officers? If you accept anything in the way of a gratuity, your ass is out.

Also, I should just add, WWII lasted from December 1941 until June 1945...we took back entire continents from countries with a lot more on the ball than Iraq ever has had.

Joining the military isn't about serving this country, its about serving business interests that at best do nothing for this country.

1st, police officers have way too low of standards IMO... i'd rather pay more taxes to pay the police more so that there are more people trying to become them, and set higher standards... theres a lot of really bad poloice officers... just like a lot of bad politicians.

2nd, you said earlier that it was stupid to compare WW2 to Iraq ... i said pretty much the same thing you said earlier... this is not being fought as a war... if it was, it would be done by now... we're not eliminating the enemy...were just marching into cities like retards because we have to be so nice to make sure no civilians are killed... but they are offing themselves like crazy anyways. This isn't a war on iraq, its against the terrorists inside iraq, which is too bad because its a lot easier to win when everyones attacking and you don't have to worry about who is in the way... But these iraqi soldiers would rather risk their women and children lives then their own. There's really no easy way to win, your right...

3rd, im hoping that when you say joining the military is about business interests you are criticizing how the war benefits certain companies, and not criticizing soldiers... because there is no reason, pro war or against it, to blame soldiers

Last, Many, many democrats voted to go to war, john kerry included...

No, my point was, similar to police officers, they should make a law that politicians can be prosecuted for accepting favors or gratuities. Whether monetary or not. The law should be enforced stringently. I'm sick of seeing bought and paid for asshole, corrupt politicians from both sides of the aisle driving this country into a hole.

Your point is STILL wrong regarding WWII. It wasn't until late in WWII that civilian targets were ever considered to be targeted by the U.S. and although Nazi Germany and Japan started it (With V-1 and V-2 rockets in the case of Germany), the U.S. went out of their way to kill innocent people, whose only crime was being in the wrong city. Dwight Eisenhower expressed much remorse over these actions by the U.S. military after WWII, he called them "regrettable", of course he was a great man, a man of overriding morality and honor, so you really can't compare the modern republican leadership in the White House to him, nor can you compare this fake modern "sensitivity" about hitting civilian targets. Its more rubbed-palms hypocrisy of the modern government. They hit civilian targets all the time...as far as I'm concerned, I believe in the imperative of moral war. If not possible to conduct moral war, I believe you should annihilate the country in question. Level it, leave not a single thing left alive. That should be the testament of war, two outcomes, peace or total annihilation. It would make the world a more peaceful place. Or a deader place. Who knows?

Well, I would expect that the soldiers would be educated in the Greek tradition and they would know what was at stake for a given war...they are lied to all the time, of course, but the truth trickles down, generals tell colonels, who tell majors who tell captains who tell lieutenants who tell sergeants and so on. The soldiers choose to become soldiers, they should be aware of whats involved. They can't pull the Nuremberg "We were just following orders." defense. OK, I'll bite, why can't we blame soldiers? The old 60s standby is "What if they gave a war and nobody came?" Just for the sake of argument...I say you can blame soldiers...if they didn't enroll in the military, there would be no military and there would be no unjust wars. If they instituted a draft, people just wouldn't come. Bingo, no soldiers, no corrupt republican wars.

As for your last point, the republicans are the one pushing this on the American people, the conservative media is pushing the war, the reactionary democrats opt to waffle rather than lead and vote for a war. How many democrats are on Bush's cabinet that helped falsify the the evidence for the Iraq war? Zerrro is the correct answer. The republicans are the ones that went out of their way to lie to the American people...remember? There were no WMDs. High level witnesses like Tenet testified that the CIA was looking at these guys and their "evidence" and wondering what the fuck was going on...it was all false, the CIA knew it. The rest of the world knew it, over 180 countries voted against the US going to war with Iraq, calling their evidence "unconvincing", the UN weapons inspectors, the experts declared Iraq had no WMDs...so who thought that Iraq had WMDs? I didn't...most of you reading this did (if you live in the US). Polls from 2002 show that as much as 60% of the American people thought that Iraq had conducted the 9/11 attacks...they didn't...Saudi Arabia did*...what did Saudi Arabia get for their stabbing us in the back? A concession for us to remove our troops from there (which had been lingering around since 1991). Way to be tough on terrorism. Backtracking for just a second...how is it that so many Americans can be so wrong about who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks? Obviously our media must be deceiving people...people aren't that stupid, I remember some of the carefully constructed phrases they used on Fox News "Iraq is a bed of terrorism, like the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11." They didn't say Iraq did it, but the implication is there and its dishonest. The republican leadership in the White House is so incompetent or so corrupt, it boggles the mind. What did the republican party do when it found out how wrong the war was? Did they admit they made a mistake? Lots of democrats did...nope, they kept supporting it, saying all sorts of ambiguous, unquotable things trying to imply it was the right thing to do. Like the economist predictions...it was a big thing that kind of led up to things like Fox News. An economist like Milton Friedman would see that the economy was beginning to slip into recession and he'd say "If the U.S. doesn't start relaxing regulations, the economy will slip into recession." Its beginning to slide already, he's just using it to plug deregulation. Same thing with the war in Iraq...we remove our troops in 2020, a revolution occurs and we say "All of our work was destroyed because we pulled our troops out too fast." No, the revolution has a high certainty of occurring if the U.S. removes its forces...when is irrelevant.

*Arguable, but a Saudi Arabian faction definitely was the prime mover in 9/11.

So, I take it, King, that you then support a unilateral, immediate removal of US troops from Iraq?

[The King]

No, my point was, similar to police officers, they should make a law that politicians can be prosecuted for accepting favors or gratuities. Whether monetary or not. The law should be enforced stringently. I'm sick of seeing bought and paid for asshole, corrupt politicians from both sides of the aisle driving this country into a hole.

Your point is STILL wrong regarding WWII. It wasn't until late in WWII that civilian targets were ever considered to be targeted by the U.S.

If not possible to conduct moral war, I believe you should annihilate the country in question. Level it, leave not a single thing left alive. That should be the testament of war, two outcomes, peace or total annihilation. It would make the world a more peaceful place. Or a deader place. Who knows?

.I say you can blame soldiers...if they didn't enroll in the military, there would be no military and there would be no unjust wars. If they instituted a draft, people just wouldn't come. Bingo, no soldiers, no corrupt republican wars.

So, I take it, King, that you then support a unilateral, immediate removal of US troops from Iraq?

Arlight, tryin to keep this decently short...

1st...I agree, politicians should not be allowed to do shit like that, I really, really, really hate politics... i care a lot about the government, but i hate the way politicians lie and manipulate and spend millions of dollars for there campaign...waste of money.

2nd...I didn't say in ww2 they targeted civilians... i'm saying this war isn't like a regular war because of the civilians, we can't march through battlezones destroying what's in our path because they're are civilians and we have to play a nice war... bullshit...

3rd... you honestly think the answer is to just annihilate the country... we're not debating the war anymore, we're already there... what do you think would happen if we just nuked the shit out of iraqi cities? We could cause a nuclear holacaust... UN would flip and demand we give up nuclear powers because we'd deserve it... then what? It's a bullshit war, it's difficult... there's no easy win... it's not a matter of bein strong enough... we are prevented from using our potential strength(not nukes) to win because of civilians in the way... If we kill a bunch of civillians we really aren't much better then the terrorists themselves... even though they would be bringin it upon themselves.

4th... Can't believe you're actually suggesting its soldiers fault for enlisting... yeah that would just go great, a dominant world power with no military... probably the most ridiculous suggestion I've ever heard.

5th...FUCK NO am i supporting a immediate withdrawal of troops... we'll lose more troops and supplies than ever if we just up and leave...I think we should just march city to city and say get the fuck out, we're gonna blow everything up in 4 hours... annihilate the city, kill anyone who refuses to cooperate and move on the next one... help rebuild when everything's done....
Not a perfect solution but shit, we'd save american lives and money in the end probably

I don't think the war is a good idea, but there isn't an easy fix.

[PerznPerversion]

No, my point was, similar to police officers, they should make a law that politicians can be prosecuted for accepting favors or gratuities. Whether monetary or not. The law should be enforced stringently. I'm sick of seeing bought and paid for asshole, corrupt politicians from both sides of the aisle driving this country into a hole.

Your point is STILL wrong regarding WWII. It wasn't until late in WWII that civilian targets were ever considered to be targeted by the U.S.

If not possible to conduct moral war, I believe you should annihilate the country in question. Level it, leave not a single thing left alive. That should be the testament of war, two outcomes, peace or total annihilation. It would make the world a more peaceful place. Or a deader place. Who knows?

.I say you can blame soldiers...if they didn't enroll in the military, there would be no military and there would be no unjust wars. If they instituted a draft, people just wouldn't come. Bingo, no soldiers, no corrupt republican wars.

So, I take it, King, that you then support a unilateral, immediate removal of US troops from Iraq?

Arlight, tryin to keep this decently short...

1st...I agree, politicians should not be allowed to do shit like that, I really, really, really hate politics... i care a lot about the government, but i hate the way politicians lie and manipulate and spend millions of dollars for there campaign...waste of money.

2nd...I didn't say in ww2 they targeted civilians... i'm saying this war isn't like a regular war because of the civilians, we can't march through battlezones destroying what's in our path because they're are civilians and we have to play a nice war... bullshit...

3rd... you honestly think the answer is to just annihilate the country... we're not debating the war anymore, we're already there... what do you think would happen if we just nuked the shit out of iraqi cities? We could cause a nuclear holacaust... UN would flip and demand we give up nuclear powers because we'd deserve it... then what? It's a bullshit war, it's difficult... there's no easy win... it's not a matter of bein strong enough... we are prevented from using our potential strength(not nukes) to win because of civilians in the way... If we kill a bunch of civillians we really aren't much better then the terrorists themselves... even though they would be bringin it upon themselves.

4th... Can't believe you're actually suggesting its soldiers fault for enlisting... yeah that would just go great, a dominant world power with no military... probably the most ridiculous suggestion I've ever heard.

5th...FUCK NO am i supporting a immediate withdrawal of troops... we'll lose more troops and supplies than ever if we just up and leave...I think we should just march city to city and say get the fuck out, we're gonna blow everything up in 4 hours... annihilate the city, kill anyone who refuses to cooperate and move on the next one... help rebuild when everything's done....
Not a perfect solution but shit, we'd save american lives and money in the end probably

I don't think the war is a good idea, but there isn't an easy fix.

Somebody mentioned that this thread was up so I came back just to say this. LOL

king it seems to me that you think american lives are more important than other human life out there. There all equal and you make no sense. If you withdraw the troops how will more troops die if their gone from the place?? non existant soldiers cant die can they?

Also WTF are you thinking, tell everyone to get out of a city and blow it up?? WTF THAT DOESNT SOLVE ANYTIHNG. Are you really that naive and fucking stupid? Destroying cities would not save money at all, and it would take so much time and effort. ITS THEIR COUNTRY! you fucking cant blow up random cities because ur occopying it. "get the fuck out or u die" wtf dude. I bet theyre saying that shit about us, except they have a right to because they live there. People have memories and are attached to those cities. what if i fucking said. EVERYONE GET THE FUCK OUT OF LOS ANGELES! IM GOING TO BLOW IT UP! If ur not out then its ur own fault and u die. That is NOT logical at all. We shouldnt even be in that country. why dont you think of a practical solution before you open your mouth, you may sound mentally retarded again.

Also i guarantee you if we were to nuke a country for no fucking reason, it would cause a chain reaction that could be the end of the world. Russia and China would nuke us and we would nuke them and then india and pakistan come into the loop and basically its WWIII except there are no winners cuz we all die, including the earth.

This war is basically the iraqi people vs us. Peoples opinions vary but im pretty damn sure that most iraqis want us out. People resort to terrorism because they have no way around it sometimes. Like this shitty "war".

Did you know we have allied with al-qaeda's terrorist ally, just to overthrow Irans Government. Woopdeedoo we support terrorism and want it to be done with!

[nestormakhno]

Haha, look who's back.

[The King]

If you try and just immediately withdraw troops it's gonna risk a lot of lives, they'll be left vulnerable...

if you make everyone evacuate a city you can filter kill anyone who opposes, and destroy any sort of weapons they have... Then rebuild... we're pissing away money as is...you dont have to blow up the cities, but you could just march through and kill those who choose to attack, and search for weapons...

Don't call me a retard when you can't even read... I said you can't just nuke them... read it again you dumb shit before you start running your mouth... Edited September 6, 2007 by The King

[PerznPerversion]

If you try and just immediately withdraw troops it's gonna risk a lot of lives, they'll be left vulnerable...

if you make everyone evacuate a city you can filter kill anyone who opposes, and destroy any sort of weapons they have... Then rebuild... we're pissing away money as is...you dont have to blow up the cities, but you could just march through and kill those who choose to attack, and search for weapons...

Don't call me a retard when you can't even read... I said you can't just nuke them... read it again you dumb shit before you start running your mouth...

i didnt say that you said that, you just assumed it dumbass(rofl).. you said if u leave more soldiers will die and well lose more supplies. so fucking correct yourself before you write. Doing what you said is the most inneficient way to combat war, not to mention tons of weapons are smuggled to the "insurgents" every day. What your saying is we might as well be like nazi germany and blow everyone in our way. I said this before ITS THEIR COUNTRY! You cant fucking do that, Id shoot at motherfuckers who invaded my country as well. And i know you would too. Why dont we give them as much freedom as we have? What happened to unreasonable search and seizure? Were trying to make Iraq more western so why not.

[The King]

If you try and just immediately withdraw troops it's gonna risk a lot of lives, they'll be left vulnerable...

if you make everyone evacuate a city you can filter kill anyone who opposes, and destroy any sort of weapons they have... Then rebuild... we're pissing away money as is...you dont have to blow up the cities, but you could just march through and kill those who choose to attack, and search for weapons...

Don't call me a retard when you can't even read... I said you can't just nuke them... read it again you dumb shit before you start running your mouth...

i didnt say that you said that, you just assumed it dumbass(rofl).. you said if u leave more soldiers will die and well lose more supplies. so fucking correct yourself before you write. Doing what you said is the most inneficient way to combat war, not to mention tons of weapons are smuggled to the "insurgents" every day. What your saying is we might as well be like nazi germany and blow everyone in our way. I said this before ITS THEIR COUNTRY! You cant fucking do that, Id shoot at motherfuckers who invaded my country as well. And i know you would too. Why dont we give them as much freedom as we have? What happened to unreasonable search and seizure? Were trying to make Iraq more western so why not.

So you honestly think the best answer is to just stop today, turn around and march out? Leaving our troops vulnerable, and leaving these people with huge amounts of weapons and artillery?

[PerznPerversion]

If you try and just immediately withdraw troops it's gonna risk a lot of lives, they'll be left vulnerable...

if you make everyone evacuate a city you can filter kill anyone who opposes, and destroy any sort of weapons they have... Then rebuild... we're pissing away money as is...you dont have to blow up the cities, but you could just march through and kill those who choose to attack, and search for weapons...

Don't call me a retard when you can't even read... I said you can't just nuke them... read it again you dumb shit before you start running your mouth...

i didnt say that you said that, you just assumed it dumbass(rofl).. you said if u leave more soldiers will die and well lose more supplies. so fucking correct yourself before you write. Doing what you said is the most inneficient way to combat war, not to mention tons of weapons are smuggled to the "insurgents" every day. What your saying is we might as well be like nazi germany and blow everyone in our way. I said this before ITS THEIR COUNTRY! You cant fucking do that, Id shoot at motherfuckers who invaded my country as well. And i know you would too. Why dont we give them as much freedom as we have? What happened to unreasonable search and seizure? Were trying to make Iraq more western so why not.

So you honestly think the best answer is to just stop today, turn around and march out? Leaving our troops vulnerable, and leaving these people with huge amounts of weapons and artillery?

lol no, i say we stay but we actually make the iraqis do something. once we give them power we retreat slowly. sry for the name calling , i just dont like the idea of killing.

[The King]

If you try and just immediately withdraw troops it's gonna risk a lot of lives, they'll be left vulnerable...

if you make everyone evacuate a city you can filter kill anyone who opposes, and destroy any sort of weapons they have... Then rebuild... we're pissing away money as is...you dont have to blow up the cities, but you could just march through and kill those who choose to attack, and search for weapons...

Don't call me a retard when you can't even read... I said you can't just nuke them... read it again you dumb shit before you start running your mouth...

i didnt say that you said that, you just assumed it dumbass(rofl).. you said if u leave more soldiers will die and well lose more supplies. so fucking correct yourself before you write. Doing what you said is the most inneficient way to combat war, not to mention tons of weapons are smuggled to the "insurgents" every day. What your saying is we might as well be like nazi germany and blow everyone in our way. I said this before ITS THEIR COUNTRY! You cant fucking do that, Id shoot at motherfuckers who invaded my country as well. And i know you would too. Why dont we give them as much freedom as we have? What happened to unreasonable search and seizure? Were trying to make Iraq more western so why not.

So you honestly think the best answer is to just stop today, turn around and march out? Leaving our troops vulnerable, and leaving these people with huge amounts of weapons and artillery?

lol no, i say we stay but we actually make the iraqis do something. once we give them power we retreat slowly. sry for the name calling , i just dont like the idea of killing.

Thats exactly what we're trying to do...
I hate how every discussion leads to this war...

[Sonthert]

If you try and just immediately withdraw troops it's gonna risk a lot of lives, they'll be left vulnerable...

if you make everyone evacuate a city you can filter kill anyone who opposes, and destroy any sort of weapons they have... Then rebuild... we're pissing away money as is...you dont have to blow up the cities, but you could just march through and kill those who choose to attack, and search for weapons...

Don't call me a retard when you can't even read... I said you can't just nuke them... read it again you dumb shit before you start running your mouth...

i didnt say that you said that, you just assumed it dumbass(rofl).. you said if u leave more soldiers will die and well lose more supplies. so fucking correct yourself before you write. Doing what you said is the most inneficient way to combat war, not to mention tons of weapons are smuggled to the "insurgents" every day. What your saying is we might as well be like nazi germany and blow everyone in our way. I said this before ITS THEIR COUNTRY! You cant fucking do that, Id shoot at motherfuckers who invaded my country as well. And i know you would too. Why dont we give them as much freedom as we have? What happened to unreasonable search and seizure? Were trying to make Iraq more western so why not.

So you honestly think the best answer is to just stop today, turn around and march out? Leaving our troops vulnerable, and leaving these people with huge amounts of weapons and artillery?

Yes, I do. Your opinion sounds similar to more more pro-imperialist media propaganda. Why do you assume the US troops will be vulnerable? The Iraqiis will open the door and good riddance. They might even buy us a round of drinks. All they want or us is to be gone...if we are leaving, they'll be so happy they won't even want to shoot anybody for months.

More delaying tactics why we can't leave, more lame-ass reasons. Why do you trust what the media reports? They're the ones who reported obvious lies as factual to get us into the war in the first place, now they peddle snake-oil excuses why we can't just pick up and leave Iraq...very, very amusing.

I can't believe you actually think its not soldiers faults for enlisting...which is not anything similar to what I said. They are participants. Should we have exonerated the Nazi soldiers...not the officers, but the soldiers because they enlisted...actually drafted, even? Oh, no, what you did during the war doesn't count...you had to go there, you were ordered to. The American soldiers wanted to go to war, the volunteered...they should have thought about that first...it is their fault for enlisting in the US military which has a horrible record over the past 60 years. Dumb wars, unwinnable wars, wars for political currency, suppressing democracy...what nut job would join the US military? Again, for the sake of argument.

Now, now boys play nice...some other moderators gonna come over here and "boom!".

As a side point, what is it with conservatives nowadays? King, you both read something, misinterpret it and then bash your misinterpretation of it and claim to have made a point. Its called straw man fallacy...Here's an example:

King:"3rd... you honestly think the answer is to just annihilate the country... we're not debating the war anymore, we're already there... what do you think would happen if we just nuked the shit out of iraqi cities?" My straw man style-Fox News-response: Not wanting to go the distance and stay the course in Iraq means we might as well surrender. That means obviously, you are proposing surrendering to the terrorists. I think that surrendering to obvious terrorists is the same type of thinking that turned the people against the war in Vietnam, which is why we lost that war. I can't believe you would propose something so yellow and cowardly as to let terrorists have their way and leave Iraq.

Seriously, thats what your points sound like, they are off-topic, misinterpretations of what I said. About 80% of the time. I made a point about annihilating countries...you immediately assume I am talking about nuclear war. You say, no you don't support that when later you go and contradict yourself and propose that we "Annihilate the city" if they don't cooperate with us...talk about flip-flopping. Just because you can misinterpret something and change subjects doesn't make you a good debater...quite the opposite...obviously, my points are so hard and indomitable, you can address them...you have to change subjects...

Here's some somewhat joking examples of Fox-like rambling:

Why do we need a military? The constitution says we shouldn't maintain a standing army...so why do we need one? Whats going to happen if the U.S. military withdraws from every foreign soil and comes home? Yeah, nothing. You pro-military guys make the military being overseas as so important...its a waste of money and other countries don't want us there, so we should bring all our troops home.

In 5 years, we took back Europe and most of the Pacific from the Axis during WWII...the only explanation that the war in Iraq is such a failure is that the leaders of the U.S. military are incompetent or, worse, moles for the Al Queda network. So, King, you said earlier that you thought we should just leave the generals alone to do their jobs? So, you support the U.S. generals. So, you must be saying you think that the generals should go on aiding the terrorists. Look at how much terrorism has gone up in Iraq since the U.S. generals got there...it explains a lot. And, you support them. How can you sit there, call yourself an American and speak up in favor of people that are supporting terrorists? Its disgusting...maybe you should move to another country that supports terrorism and hates democracy...because your either with the U.S. or you're a terrorist.

And its true, the U.S. military being in Iraq has been one of the biggest boosts for Al Queda in a decade. Some experts say that its been one of the biggest recruiting drives for Al Queda in their history. There were no terrorists in Iraq before we went in there, now there's tons...so why is our military helping the terrorists? Some people say we needed to go into Iraq, but we can't be sure that terrorism wouldn't be eradicated by now if the U.S. military hadn't have gone in there. So, for all those misguided fools who want to join the military, ask yourselves "Why do I want to help the terrorists?". If you join the U.S. military, you're helping further the cause of terrorism...why would any good American do that? Don't join the U.S. military, for the good of America.

Now thats Fox News logic and argumentation style, more or less, except, with the completely opposite bullshit viewpoints. Their points have no semblance of reason and misstate or exaggerate facts, just demented opinions of a few guys who shouldn't have been taken off their meds. Fox News doesn't seek to inform people, it seeks to disinform people. A main strategy that Fox commentators employ is to cloud obvious issues with bullshit that they make up, like 'People think gravity is real, but some scientists are seriously beginning to question whether gravity really exists or not.'

Don't take all this shit too seriously, I'm older than you and have learned a lot more, come back in a decade and see then if you can actually hold your own in a debate with me.

[The King]

Wow, i actually just stopped reading your post it was so ridiculous... You say I'm off topic, and you go on about fox news rambling.


You said
"My straw man style-Fox News-response: Not wanting to go the distance and stay the course in Iraq means we might as well surrender. That means obviously, you are proposing surrendering to the terrorists. I think that surrendering to obvious terrorists is the same type of thinking that turned the people against the war in Vietnam, which is why we lost that war. I can't believe you would propose something so yellow and cowardly as to let terrorists have their way and leave Iraq.
"
I actually never said anything about that what so ever. So I got to say I'm a little confused where you're getting this from. You criticize me about being off topic and how I make irrelevant points, and then you demonstrate an example of why you don't like fox news. I never said anything about surrending to terrorists or ever mentioned Vietnam.

Please show me an example of where I ever said anything similiar to your "somewhat joking examples of Fox-like rambling"

I've said it many times I'm not "For the War"... but I think it's a mess and there's no easy fix...ive said that a few times...


You also said
"I can't believe you actually think its not soldiers faults for enlisting...what nut job would join the US military?"
You know I'd like to see you say that to one of my best friends who just enlisted, his brother died in Iraq about 6 months ago...

[Sonthert]

Wow, i actually just stopped reading your post it was so ridiculous... You say I'm off topic, and you go on about fox news rambling.


You said
"My straw man style-Fox News-response: Not wanting to go the distance and stay the course in Iraq means we might as well surrender. That means obviously, you are proposing surrendering to the terrorists. I think that surrendering to obvious terrorists is the same type of thinking that turned the people against the war in Vietnam, which is why we lost that war. I can't believe you would propose something so yellow and cowardly as to let terrorists have their way and leave Iraq.
"
I actually never said anything about that what so ever. So I got to say I'm a little confused where you're getting this from. You criticize me about being off topic and how I make irrelevant points, and then you demonstrate an example of why you don't like fox news. I never said anything about surrending to terrorists or ever mentioned Vietnam.

Please show me an example of where I ever said anything similiar to your "somewhat joking examples of Fox-like rambling"

I've said it many times I'm not "For the War"... but I think it's a mess and there's no easy fix...ive said that a few times...


You also said
"I can't believe you actually think its not soldiers faults for enlisting...what nut job would join the US military?"
You know I'd like to see you say that to one of my best friends who just enlisted, his brother died in Iraq about 6 months ago...

Several of my points were in a joking manner, and stated as such, and you, of course took them out of context...real good demonstration of not paying attention on your part. I have had the courtesy of reading every one of your 6th grade-reading-level responses, replete with the unresearched bullshit, but you can't take the trouble to read mine.

You make a grand point, you'd like me say that to your friend; fine...send him on over, unlike most people you might know or be looking at in the mirror, I'm not ashamed of my opinions, I'll tell them to whomever they pertain to, because they are mine...not copied from cable news. I'm not scared of him nor you, I would interpret yours as a threat. Its always cowards who threaten.

He chooses to go to Iraq, his brother chooses to go to Iraq. How can you say that joining a military unit isn't unjust if that unit is obviously going to an unjust war? Its been held time and time again in modern history, doing what you are told and following orders isn't a defense; what sort of person joins the military when we are engaged in an unjust war? If the positions were reversed, you'd be singing a completely different tune. IF the Iraqiis were bombing your town daily because of the U.S. military being in Iraq, you'd be the first "Lets get our troops out of there." guy on the bus. There is nothing heroic about joining the military, there's nothing at stake other than their own lives, people risk their lives everyday, risking it for someone you don't even know, thats heroic. There is no logic to the war in Iraq helping the U.S., and your friend's brother dying is a tragedy. No American men should ever have died there. Iraqii men should die for their own freedom. One our founding fathers of this country said, more or less, freedom isn't given, its earned. So we're right and our founding fathers are wrong...we can give a country freedom?

You find it easy to criticize my points, after you misinterpret them, which again, is the basic definition of a straw man fallacy. Most of them I had made in a less than serious manner, but so be it.

So why is it that 16,000,000 rallied to WWII while the U.S. military is way overstretched in Iraq and can't field more than 250,000 men? Its not because Americans are cowardly, far from it, quite the opposite. Its because they know the war is wrong, they knew it for some time, but the media and the politicians lied and deceived long enough to confuse trusting Americans everywhere into supporting it, but has the number of troops in the field gone up? Nope. Americans are catching on slowly (this round, anyways) and joining the military isn't something they will do lightly. Some people, like you I suspect, will support anything where only people in other countries lose their lives. You mourn the loss of your friend's brother...but do you mourn the loss of 50,000 Iraqii civilians? If the positions were again reversed, 50,000 Americans civilians dead...wouldn't you be the first one saying get the troops out of Iraq? At least your friend has the guts to not be hypocritical and go out and fight for whatever reason he is doing it...lots of people sitting around out there, waving their flags, beating their drums rhythmically "The war is wrong, but we don't want the troops out..." So, you should join the military. If you are going to be of the opinion that Americans should be there and possibly die, then you should be jumping on that bus for the recruitment center...I believe the troops shouldn't be there and they should leave...I'm also not joining the military.

Why are you "debating" (I call your end debating out of politeness) with me...you "Hate Liberals". I am a liberal...I have voted democrat in every election since I was old enough to vote. I am an extremely liberal democrat at that, leaning towards the outer-edge political parties in some cases. Come on, hate me. See, the problem is here, I don't like your brand of prejudice nor racism. When people make dumb statements like "I hate liberals", "I hate people of that religion." or "People of that racial group are this way.". Maybe you should go live in a country where there is only one type of political view, like China or Cuba. Whether a statement like that is talking about liberals, blacks, Jews or Iraqiis, its just ignorant, yours is a disgusting perversion of everything this great country stands for. As long as prejudice is prevalent, equality is impossible. Without equality, there can be no freedom. Yours is the insult to the brave men that have joined and died in the service of the military for freedom when the U.S. was threatened. As long as people like you hate other people because of the color of their skin, the political viewpoint they hold or the religion they choose to follow, this country isn't free and all those men who gave their lives for this country have died in vain. In effect, attitudes like "I hate liberals" make your friend's brother's death pointless.

I stand for the principles that this country was founded on. I don't know what you stand for, but it must involve watching too much television.

[The King]

Wow, i actually just stopped reading your post it was so ridiculous... You say I'm off topic, and you go on about fox news rambling.


You said
"My straw man style-Fox News-response: Not wanting to go the distance and stay the course in Iraq means we might as well surrender. That means obviously, you are proposing surrendering to the terrorists. I think that surrendering to obvious terrorists is the same type of thinking that turned the people against the war in Vietnam, which is why we lost that war. I can't believe you would propose something so yellow and cowardly as to let terrorists have their way and leave Iraq.
"
I actually never said anything about that what so ever. So I got to say I'm a little confused where you're getting this from. You criticize me about being off topic and how I make irrelevant points, and then you demonstrate an example of why you don't like fox news. I never said anything about surrending to terrorists or ever mentioned Vietnam.

Please show me an example of where I ever said anything similiar to your "somewhat joking examples of Fox-like rambling"

I've said it many times I'm not "For the War"... but I think it's a mess and there's no easy fix...ive said that a few times...


You also said
"I can't believe you actually think its not soldiers faults for enlisting...what nut job would join the US military?"
You know I'd like to see you say that to one of my best friends who just enlisted, his brother died in Iraq about 6 months ago...

Several of my points were in a joking manner, and stated as such, and you, of course took them out of context...real good demonstration of not paying attention on your part. I have had the courtesy of reading every one of your 6th grade-reading-level responses, replete with the unresearched bullshit, but you can't take the trouble to read mine.

You make a grand point, you'd like me say that to your friend; fine...send him on over, unlike most people you might know or be looking at in the mirror, I'm not ashamed of my opinions, I'll tell them to whomever they pertain to, because they are mine...not copied from cable news. I'm not scared of him nor you, I would interpret yours as a threat. Its always cowards who threaten.

He chooses to go to Iraq, his brother chooses to go to Iraq. How can you say that joining a military unit isn't unjust if that unit is obviously going to an unjust war? Its been held time and time again in modern history, doing what you are told and following orders isn't a defense; what sort of person joins the military when we are engaged in an unjust war? If the positions were reversed, you'd be singing a completely different tune. IF the Iraqiis were bombing your town daily because of the U.S. military being in Iraq, you'd be the first "Lets get our troops out of there." guy on the bus. There is nothing heroic about joining the military, there's nothing at stake other than their own lives, people risk their lives everyday, risking it for someone you don't even know, thats heroic. There is no logic to the war in Iraq helping the U.S., and your friend's brother dying is a tragedy. No American men should ever have died there. Iraqii men should die for their own freedom. One our founding fathers of this country said, more or less, freedom isn't given, its earned. So we're right and our founding fathers are wrong...we can give a country freedom?

You find it easy to criticize my points, after you misinterpret them, which again, is the basic definition of a straw man fallacy. Most of them I had made in a less than serious manner, but so be it.

So why is it that 16,000,000 rallied to WWII while the U.S. military is way overstretched in Iraq and can't field more than 250,000 men? Its not because Americans are cowardly, far from it, quite the opposite. Its because they know the war is wrong, they knew it for some time, but the media and the politicians lied and deceived long enough to confuse trusting Americans everywhere into supporting it, but has the number of troops in the field gone up? Nope. Americans are catching on slowly (this round, anyways) and joining the military isn't something they will do lightly. Some people, like you I suspect, will support anything where only people in other countries lose their lives. You mourn the loss of your friend's brother...but do you mourn the loss of 50,000 Iraqii civilians? If the positions were again reversed, 50,000 Americans civilians dead...wouldn't you be the first one saying get the troops out of Iraq? At least your friend has the guts to not be hypocritical and go out and fight for whatever reason he is doing it...lots of people sitting around out there, waving their flags, beating their drums rhythmically "The war is wrong, but we don't want the troops out..." So, you should join the military. If you are going to be of the opinion that Americans should be there and possibly die, then you should be jumping on that bus for the recruitment center...I believe the troops shouldn't be there and they should leave...I'm also not joining the military.

Why are you "debating" (I call your end debating out of politeness) with me...you "Hate Liberals". I am a liberal...I have voted democrat in every election since I was old enough to vote. I am an extremely liberal democrat at that, leaning towards the outer-edge political parties in some cases. Come on, hate me. See, the problem is here, I don't like your brand of prejudice nor racism. When people make dumb statements like "I hate liberals", "I hate people of that religion." or "People of that racial group are this way.". Maybe you should go live in a country where there is only one type of political view, like China or Cuba. Whether a statement like that is talking about liberals, blacks, Jews or Iraqiis, its just ignorant, yours is a disgusting perversion of everything this great country stands for. As long as prejudice is prevalent, equality is impossible. Without equality, there can be no freedom. Yours is the insult to the brave men that have joined and died in the service of the military for freedom when the U.S. was threatened. As long as people like you hate other people because of the color of their skin, the political viewpoint they hold or the religion they choose to follow, this country isn't free and all those men who gave their lives for this country have died in vain. In effect, attitudes like "I hate liberals" make your friend's brother's death pointless.

I stand for the principles that this country was founded on. I don't know what you stand for, but it must involve watching too much television.

Wow.... just WOW.

Sorry I'm not nearly as into this as you are and spend my time researching statistics and writing essays.

Your responses are absurd. First you suggest I'm ashamed of my opinions... Yeah, that makes a lot of sense seeing as how I started a topic on my opinions. Good logic there...

Next, I said say that to my friend because yeah, He'd tear you apart... the only reason I said that is because your comment was so blatantly offensive, blaming soldiers for the war. It's not supposed to be a serious threat, although It did piss me off quite a bit. Fighting over the internet is really stupid.

Then you suggest that I support the war, which completely amazes me that you can keep talking like you're intelligent after I've said many times I do not. Because I said you can't blame the soldiers that makes me for the war huh? that makes sense. Also, I am trying to decide whether or not I will enlist, and you blaming soldiers is really, really offensive.

Enlisting does not make you automatically go to Iraq, I'm sure you're willing to look up the percentage of people in the military vs those in Iraq, so go for it. Maybe some people believe in going is a resposibility
to try and do anything they can to make it end as soon as possible. Maybe some people enlist to be trained and be ready in case anything else may happen to endanger the country. Then when they are selected to go to war, they are supposed to say no? And let their team die all around them? If I choose to enlist, train with a division, and then that division is selected to go, I know I would want to go to do everything I could to try and help my fellow soldeirs. Whether it's disarming roadside bombs, being a medic, or being a front line troop killing the enemy, I'd go.
If you want the troops back make an effort for a nation wide petition, convince people to vote someone in who'll end the war, do something if you're so strong minded.

You also keep making points about why the war was such a bad idea, when I started out saying it wasn't a good idea, and just that I do not see an easy solution. And your response everytime is calling me naive and under educated, then criticizing the war some more.

Then, you start talking about racism... which completely blows my mind. Are you Kanye West or what? Trying to bring up racism for any reason?

And here's quotes of yours
"As long as people like you hate other people because of the color of their skin, the political viewpoint they hold or the religion they choose to follow, this country isn't free and all those men who gave their lives for this country have died in vain"
"You mourn the loss of your friend's brother...but do you mourn the loss of 50,000 Iraqii civilians? If the positions were again reversed, 50,000 Americans civilians dead...wouldn't you be the first one saying get the troops out of Iraq?"

Yes, obviously I will care more about the death of a friend of mine's brother than the people who are attacking US soldiers... If your friend died in a car accident and he was to blame for it, wouldn't you be effected more by his death then the people that died in the hurricanes in Mexico? Implying that I'm racist makes me seriously question your intelligence. It is a way to try and make me look like a prejudice person, to support your arguement. And since you don't have any clue on any relationships of mine with any other races, your statement yet again makes realize how bad your arguements are.

And you think I really meant that I hate everyone who's a liberal no matter what? A lot of my friends are liberal, wasn't the best topic title I'll admit. I did not however say anything else against all liberals, just said the media. The initial purpose was to get the fact that the media is so biased and manupitalive off my chest.
If I did talk about how all liberals are such terrible people(not that I feel this way), it would be my choice, protected by the first amendment, and part of the "Marketplace of Ideas" theory. So it's not really completely opposite of the rights of the people... Silencing other opinions would be.

So nows the part where you'll come back, say an insult, bitch about the war, and say my points are off topic. I don't understand why you keep argueing that the war is wrong when I have not once said anything different. So, I'm just really not sure what else to say to such a terrible reply that is off topic, and falsely accuses me of being racist and a hypocrite.

and thanks for ruining my good mood about the Colts beating the hell out of the Saints.... Edited September 7, 2007 by The King

[Sonthert]

Wow.... just WOW.

Sorry I'm not nearly as into this as you are and spend my time researching statistics and writing essays.

Your responses are absurd. First you suggest I'm ashamed of my opinions... Yeah, that makes a lot of sense seeing as how I started a topic on my opinions. Good logic there...

Next, I said say that to my friend because yeah, He'd tear you apart... the only reason I said that is because your comment was so blatantly offensive, blaming soldiers for the war. It's not supposed to be a serious threat, although It did piss me off quite a bit. Fighting over the internet is really stupid.

Fighting over the internet is stupid? Good one...why are you then? Why are you making threats? How do you know your friend could tear me apart? You make observations, etc. without any factual support. Its real intelligent for somebody to go and start a fight because you don't agree with somebody. What are you, 12? Reminds me of "My big brother can beat up anybody!". Ohhhh. Big guy. Real scared. As a moderator, I would suggest that if you make anything resembling a threat towards another person again, you will be feeling the big boot. You can disagree with somebody, have arguments, but when you cross that junior high school line, and threaten violence, you are in violation of the rules of this Forum.

Then you suggest that I support the war, which completely amazes me that you can keep talking like you're intelligent after I've said many times I do not.

I'm confused...you're saying you don't talk like you're intelligent and I do? Thats what I got out of the sentence.

Because I said you can't blame the soldiers that makes me for the war huh? that makes sense.

Again, you've been misunderstanding what I've been saying. I've posed several questions, they aren't necessarily representative of my viewpoints. How can you say you don't support the war if you support men joining the military to go to Iraq? Think about it...your statements are contradictory.

Also, I am trying to decide whether or not I will enlist, and you blaming soldiers is really, really offensive.

I didn't blame soldiers, I was making a point.

As far as you being offended...Boo hoooo! Snff. You only want people to agree with you, huh? You can't take a little criticism. You think joining the military confers some special privilege on you? You're joining for the wrong reasons then.

Enlisting does not make you automatically go to Iraq, I'm sure you're willing to look up the percentage of people in the military vs those in Iraq, so go for it.

Maybe some people believe in going is a resposibility
to try and do anything they can to make it end as soon as possible.

If we're talking active duty, thats easy, there's 10 active divisions in the U.S. Army, nine of them are in Iraq. The marines, I believe all three are in Iraq, but lets assume just two are in Iraq. So, of the 12 active divisions (one of the marine divisions in question is a reserve unit), 11 are in Iraq...so, 11/12 thats about 91% or so. I don't know how up-to-date those numbers are, but you are right, according to these numbers only 91% of the active U.S. ground forces are in Iraq. Not to mention a bulwark of the troops in the National Guard...what...did they tell you you weren't going to Iraq or there was a "chance"? I guess thats true.

The US still has no objective. Victory is impossible without an objective. I've informally studied modern military science since I was 12, my father was a WWII veteran and we discussed military subjects frequently...I do know something about it. If I say, we take the town of Zarqa, thats an objective, if we take the town of Zarqa, we win. If we don't, we lose. I assume that a war only ends in a victory or a defeat. So, if we have no objectives, we can't win, but we can't lose. That why the analysis of the Iraq War by the media is especially poor, there are no objectives to evaluate the war effort. So, no, it won't end without an objective or a unilateral evacuation.

Maybe some people enlist to be trained and be ready in case anything else may happen to endanger the country. Then when they are selected to go to war, they are supposed to say no? And let their team die all around them? If I choose to enlist, train with a division, and then that division is selected to go, I know I would want to go to do everything I could to try and help my fellow soldeirs. Whether it's disarming roadside bombs, being a medic, or being a front line troop killing the enemy, I'd go.

If you want the troops back make an effort for a nation wide petition, convince people to vote someone in who'll end the war, do something if you're so strong minded.

What about using spell check? Would you do that for them? Just kidding. I'm quite willing to fight and die for my country too...even if I would die with certainty...but only if there were a good reason for it. Accepting politicians saying "We have a good reason, but we can't tell you." Is bullshit. The only time a country should go to war is when the reasons for the war are as obvious as the nose on your face.

Since over 90% of our military is in Iraq/Afghanistan, including the National Guard, doesn't that disprove your point? If a country wanted to attack the United States, in a conventional ground war...wouldn't now be the best time? Aren't we the most vulnerable to an enemy attack now, when almost all our troops and National Guardsmen are overseas? So, we can assume, if we didn't want to invade any foreign countries like Iraq, that the current military force of about 10% of the whole is sufficient to defend the U.S....unless you want to propose that our leaders have left us vulnerable to foreign attacks?! No, of course not. So, the U.S. military only needs to be a tenth of its current size...of course, we wouldn't be able to attack countries like Iraq, but I'm OK with that. Apparently, you are too, since you said you didn't support the war with Iraq. So, why are people joining the US military? Its too big. An amount of 25,000-30,000 men should be sufficient to protect the U.S.. Which is why you proposed people could be joining the military for good reasons, to defend the U.S., so don't join the military, we already have enough troops to defend this country.

I did start a petition...its called voting democrat...of course, Bush vetoes each bill that involves removing troops or cutting funding for the war. He wants to send more troops...that doesn't sound like ending a war...that sounds like intensifying it.

You also keep making points about why the war was such a bad idea, when I started out saying it wasn't a good idea, and just that I do not see an easy solution. And your response everytime is calling me naive and under educated, then criticizing the war some more.

I haven't called you naive or under-educated...I did say some of your stuff sounded juvenile, true. You started the childishness by saying "Wow, i actually just stopped reading your post it was so ridiculous." Or did you forget you started the name calling? Of course, you even threatened me, and you hate liberals...why would I call you naive or under-educated?

Then, you start talking about racism... which completely blows my mind. Are you Kanye West or what? Trying to bring up racism for any reason?

And here's quotes of yours
"As long as people like you hate other people because of the color of their skin, the political viewpoint they hold or the religion they choose to follow, this country isn't free and all those men who gave their lives for this country have died in vain"
"You mourn the loss of your friend's brother...but do you mourn the loss of 50,000 Iraqii civilians? If the positions were again reversed, 50,000 Americans civilians dead...wouldn't you be the first one saying get the troops out of Iraq?"

Yes, obviously I will care more about the death of a friend of mine's brother than the people who are attacking US soldiers... If your friend died in a car accident and he was to blame for it, wouldn't you be effected more by his death then the people that died in the hurricanes in Mexico? Implying that I'm racist makes me seriously question your intelligence. It is a way to try and make me look like a prejudice person, to support your arguement. And since you don't have any clue on any relationships of mine with any other races, your statement yet again makes realize how bad your arguements are.

Ah, but you are prejudiced, saying you hate liberals is the very definition of prejudice. What if you had said "The King hates catholics." Prejudice, right? or "The King hates blacks."...prejudice, right? So how is hating liberals any different?

Racism is just a form of prejudice. I don't who this Kanye West person is...of course, in reference to your statement, I have always found that prejudiced people are the first ones who don't want to talk about it. Its like any insidious, corrosive influence, it withers and dies in the light...so you don't like bringing up racism? Hitting too close to home?

Why do you assume there haven't been any innocent Iraqiis killed? A case on conscience?? You assume that when I referred to 50,000 dead Iraqiis, I was referring to ones that had attacked U.S. soldiers...how do you know? You don't...another example of prejudice on your part. You ARE prejudiced...you have proven the point yourself. Sorry, man. Fortunately, although I hate prejudice more than most people, I don't hate prejudiced people on principle...I like you, you make me laugh.

And, no, although I am more connected and have personal feelings associated with my friends and family members that have died, morally, the senseless death of 100 people is 100x worse than the death of one person...it doesn't matter where that person is from. A great many people share my view...you might not, but many people do. We look at humanity as a whole, not flags and lines drawn on a map.

And you think I really meant that I hate everyone who's a liberal no matter what? A lot of my friends are liberal, wasn't the best topic title I'll admit. I did not however say anything else against all liberals, just said the media. The initial purpose was to get the fact that the media is so biased and manupitalive off my chest.

Silly me, I assumed that you said it, so you meant it.

You still haven't offered any proof that the media is biased and manipulative. I agree with you, in that statement, but you also offered the opinion that the media has a liberal bias, but have offered nothing to back up that opinion...

A lot of your friends are liberal...is that like saying "have a lot friends who are black"...let me guess...mostly girls, right? Wouldn't be hanging around those liberal dudes...

If I did talk about how all liberals are such terrible people(not that I feel this way), it would be my choice, protected by the first amendment, and part of the "Marketplace of Ideas" theory. So it's not really completely opposite of the rights of the people... Silencing other opinions would be.

So nows the part where you'll come back, say an insult, bitch about the war, and say my points are off topic. I don't understand why you keep argueing that the war is wrong when I have not once said anything different. So, I'm just really not sure what else to say to such a terrible reply that is off topic, and falsely accuses me of being racist and a hypocrite.

and thanks for ruining my good mood about the Colts beating the hell out of the Saints....

I mean, if you're going to make a backwater comment like "I hate liberals", don't waffle like Al Gore, stick behind your comments. Don't insult our intelligence by saying you didn't mean them. Everyone can see you meant it.

I'm not saying you don't have the right to say you hate liberals, which is what you said, what I was saying was that your attitude is the type of thinking that is dragging this country down, it is repugnant and stupid. Yeah, that attitude. Yours is the same mindset that allowed stupidities from the Holocaust to the Vincent Chin beating death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Chin You think you know something about somebody because you label them with a label like "liberal". You assume a liberal has certain qualities and god forbid somebody proves you wrong! Look at everything you've said:

1. You hate liberals.
2. You assume that all dead Iraqiis that are trying to kill U.S. soldiers.
3. You assume that anyone that talks about racism is like your Kanye West friend, and would assume they have similar qualities to her (him?). I understand you can't deal with the mention of racism, but it seemed like a good idea at the time.
4. You assume that I can't fight because I am a liberal (or whatever reason) and your friend can "tear me up" for whatever reason.

Pretty much text-book definitions of prejudice on your part.

Somebody made a good point, "Those of us who are opposed to prejudice have to battle it in the open, silently disagreeing with the attitudes is only laying ground for the seeds of prejudice to continue to grow." Edited September 9, 2007 by Sonthert

[The King]

1. You hate liberals.
2. You assume that all dead Iraqiis that are trying to kill U.S. soldiers.
3. You assume that anyone that talks about racism is like your Kanye West friend, and would assume they have similar qualities to her (him?). I understand you can't deal with the mention of racism, but it seemed like a good idea at the time.
4. You assume that I can't fight because I am a liberal (or whatever reason) and your friend can "tear me up" for whatever reason.

1. Already said that was a poor title... It's like when someone says " I hate the rain" You can't seriously mean you wish it didn't ever rain, its just something you say when your upset. I don't like most of the liberal viewpoints, didn't mean it so seriously as to I hate every liberal person ever. I'm pretty sure you can realize that I didn't mean it like that, yet you just keep trying to argue.

2. Never said all dead Iraqi's were trying to kill US soldiers?

3. First of all, Kanye West is a famous rapper who said some absurd shit on national air time during a telethon to help victims of Katrina. His exact words were "George Bush doesn't care about black people". Then he went on from there about blaming george bush. Actually reminds me of you saying that I'm racist. You say I can't deal with the topic of racism? I just don't like being called racist, because I'm not.

4. I never said you can't fight, didn't say I was going to hurt you either. I meant was I doubt you'd be such a punk face to face. It's like a bratty little kid on a prank phone call.

Also, you said "Since over 90% of our military is in Iraq/Afghanistan". I still don't believe that number... I'm talkin percentage of people in Iraq, out of number of people enlisted in any branch of the US military

So, I'm gonna try argueing like you do it I guess.... here goes...

You blame soldiers, you hate all soldiers, you hate America.

So there, you hate America...
Oh, and since you hate soldiers you're prejudice too, which makes you racist, and against freedom of religion. So you're just against America. It's people like you who caused the the attacks on September 11th

[Sonthert]

1. You hate liberals.
2. You assume that all dead Iraqiis that are trying to kill U.S. soldiers.
3. You assume that anyone that talks about racism is like your Kanye West friend, and would assume they have similar qualities to her (him?). I understand you can't deal with the mention of racism, but it seemed like a good idea at the time.
4. You assume that I can't fight because I am a liberal (or whatever reason) and your friend can "tear me up" for whatever reason.

1. Already said that was a poor title... It's like when someone says " I hate the rain" You can't seriously mean you wish it didn't ever rain, its just something you say when your upset. I don't like most of the liberal viewpoints, didn't mean it so seriously as to I hate every liberal person ever. I'm pretty sure you can realize that I didn't mean it like that, yet you just keep trying to argue.

2. Never said all dead Iraqi's were trying to kill US soldiers?

3. First of all, Kanye West is a famous rapper who said some absurd shit on national air time during a telethon to help victims of Katrina. His exact words were "George Bush doesn't care about black people". Then he went on from there about blaming george bush. Actually reminds me of you saying that I'm racist. You say I can't deal with the topic of racism? I just don't like being called racist, because I'm not.

4. I never said you can't fight, didn't say I was going to hurt you either. I meant was I doubt you'd be such a punk face to face. It's like a bratty little kid on a prank phone call.

Also, you said "Since over 90% of our military is in Iraq/Afghanistan". I still don't believe that number... I'm talkin percentage of people in Iraq, out of number of people enlisted in any branch of the US military

So, I'm gonna try argueing like you do it I guess.... here goes...

You blame soldiers, you hate all soldiers, you hate America.

So there, you hate America...
Oh, and since you hate soldiers you're prejudice too, which makes you racist, and against freedom of religion. So you're just against America. It's people like you who caused the the attacks on September 11th

Easily the worst of them all.

1. Oh, well. Not only was it the title, but you bashed liberals by name in the opening statement of your thread...what else was everyone to think? Why do you think you can make inflammatory statements and then just shrug them off saying you didn't mean them?
2. You Implied it. Be careful of your implications.
3. I don't know that its true regarding Hurricane Katrina's victims. I don't jump to conclusions about things nor generalize what people say into broad categories I've already predetermined in my mind. Which your very initial statement suggests.
4. You're the guy who keeps vomiting up bullshit, making statements about social commentators, political affiliations, making threats. If you hadn't have used that obviously inflammatory first line "I Hate liberals" none of this conversation would have taken place. You don't read what other people say, just edit out snippets to use to make a point. Your obvious and continuous misinterpretations of points show you really can't stand up in a debate. You got laid backwards on your thing about the Iraq and you have been making petty personal arguments since then.

I never called you a racist. You just made a big deal about me calling you a racist, its not true. You make big deals that people said lots of things. I called you prejudiced. I think I proved that you're prejudiced quite efficiently. Whether you're a racist or not, I can't say. Prejudice leads to racism, of course, so...

Call me a punk if you want, but do it somewhere else other than the Forum. And yes, come and meet me face to face, act disrespectfully to me or any of my customers the way you are now and you will see I react the same way to you, your friend who is joining the army who can kick my ass, your grandmother or anybody else for that matter. When you are being an obvious asshole, disrespecting other people, you will get an earful of me every time. If I see just one more violation of the rules on your part, I will bring you up before the moderators for a five day ban. If you can't debate in a civil manner, don't come around the Serious Discussion Area.

Here's a short synopsis of our conversation:
You start thread about how the media has a liberal bias.

I respond saying that the liberal bias could be interpreted from a different perspective if you look at media sources from other countries.

You say you can't compare our government to other governments. You make a point about the media, say the media will rot kid's minds. Then make a point about the media's coverage of the Iraq war.

I then countered each of your arguments, expanding on the Iraq war. I contested one your comparisons between Iraq and WWII. I made the point that victory in Iraq isn't likely but the media is distorting to perpetuate the war. I framed an historical perspective of the Iraq war.

You said you had to go to work, you couldn't read it.

I responded to SafeSearchOff's post, it included a random point about holding politicians to the same standards as police officers.

You responded kind of to both my points, one you said there were good cops and bad cops, good politicians and bad politicians. You also said your statement agreed with mine that WWII and Iraq were different. My point was more oriented towards showing that Iraq was going to be unsuccessful for a number of reasons, I was using WWII as a "We won" war as a counter example, we need to be more like that than this. You then made some point saying you hoped I wasn't making a point regarding the soldiers in the field. God forbid we should say anything about them...and I hadn't. You made some random comment about John Kerry, like I'm supposed to know the man or something...

I responded to your points. I then also precluded a devil's advocate statement about soldiers with "for the sake of argument" which generally means a person is proposing something, but doesn't necessarily believe it. I made a counter point that the media was supporting the war and encouraging it through their coverage and how they weren't properly informing people.

You responded by editing out my well-researched points, from your reply and intentionally taking the "For the Sake of argument" so as to misquote and misstate what I was saying. You misinterpreted what I said about the inevitabilities of a moral war. You said that it was absurd to annihilate "nuke" other countries (when I used the term annihilate to include many other possibilities other than just nuking them). Then turn around and say we should annihilate Iraqii cities that don't cooperate with us.

Persian interpolated and delivered some well time blows on you.

I watched for awhile, you guys exchanging blows. You kept emphasizing the weird idea "We'll be leaving our troops vulnerable."

Persian said that wasn't what he was saying, more or less.

You then said how you hate how every discussion turns into a discussion about the war in Iraq...you brought it up. Blame yourself...maybe thats why every discussion around you turns into and Iraq war discussion.

I responded to SafeSearch's post regarding the media and the WMDs and blamed the war primarily on the republicans. I talked more about the Iraq war.

I responded by trying to intentionally misinterpret what you were saying and made a few fun anti-Fox News jabs which I proceeded with a statement that they were less than serious. I responded to a previous statement of yours pointing out that you said one thing, flip-flopped and said the opposite thing a paragraph or so later and then said thats not what you meant at all.

You then responded that you stopped reading my post because it was so ridiculous. You demonstrate you haven't read my posts (but felt like responding anyways) and claim you don't understand why I was talking about Vietnam (which you might of if you had read my post) You then try to hit the military button again and say your friend is enlisting and his brother died in Iraq and said I wouldn't say that to him.

I call some of your responses juvenile, I claim you are criticizing my points that you intentionally misinterpreted. I make a moral argument that your statement that prompted all of this "I hate liberals" is offensive and anti-American.

The rest is absurd, its you misinterpreting what I say and attacking it.



Notice, most people have stopped responding and/or probably reading this thread. What I'm wondering is: Can you actually have a conversation with someone? Can you treat other people with respect? Can you make points along the lines of a conversation? Can you read other people's posts before making your own?

Well, can you? Up until now, you haven't. Lots of people (SafeSearch, GOD, Persian, etc.) had really good points in this thread, but neither did you acknowledge them, nor did you mention them. Did you include anybody in your little tirade or just keep firing platitudes, propaganda and bromides?
Sure, when Persian came off at you, you lobbed insults back and forth with him, but again, you weren't reading what he was saying. You kept repeating the same question rephrased over and over. Try treating people with earnest respect and maybe people will treat you with the same respect.

[The King]

Actually yes, I can have a civil discussion... and I love your post you just wrote for one thing.

You said, "I responded by trying to intentionally misinterpret what you were saying "

That's what pissed me off, not gonna lie.

You have to realize, I'm just not trying nearly as much as you, you read a response, take a day or 2 to right an essay, and post it. I just reply after I read, I'm pretty busy lately between school untill 2 then work from 3-11. After I read your post I would go ahead and reply. Oh, and I didn't finish one of your posts, but then I went back and read it.

Anyways, after I would say something, you would stretch what I said so much and say things like, "it's people like you who are prejudiced, and are anti american" or something close to that. You intentionally use that approach to try and bend the truth to accuse me of being racist, or supporting the war, etc.

Then the blaming soldiers, you did say that you COULD blame the soldiers at first, but then you came back and talk about how you do think it's the soldiers faults.

Also, your "fox impression" you did you said was just how all my responses are...When honestly, that's exactly the way you would reply by intentionally misinterperating something and trying to build up on your interpretation, like stretching me saying I don't like liberals to grouping me as a racist and against american freedoms.

And I brought up the war saying that you can tell about how the medias attitude is liberal by the way they talk about the war and blame bush for entering, when in reality many democrats also voted to go into the war. I not once said the war was a good idea, but you kept trying to argue that it wasn't, implying that I did support it. I don't like how everything comes up to be a debate for the Iraq war, and i never started one, you did.

And if you really feel threatened, for me saying I'd like to see if you still keep your offensive attitude against soldiers when your face to face with someone, then sorry, but toughen up there nancy. Just because you feel threatened doesn't mean it's a threat. I'll probably end up getting that 5-day vacation anyways though, because this will probably end up having as much justice as the real legal system. You're like the cop, except for any asshole can become a cop, atleast you became a mod for knowing hookah. Whatever, if you're that sensitive I guess I'll be serving that 5 days, nice threat with a ban by the way, does that mean you've got a vacation too?

Might as well throw this in there too, wasn't gonna say it earlier because I don't actually feel this way but oh well...
If your so concerned about every life lost, then why do you make a living off selling tobacco? Now it's someone's choice to smoke, but it's also someone's choice to enlist. And if you're going to argue that all iraqi's are innocents and having they're life taken, kinda like 2nd hand smoke... I suppose they could leave the room. but Iraqi's could step aside too. Now obviously I am not against tobacco at all, I'm just saying...

[joseph*]

I didn't read all the responses, so maybe someone already pointed this out, but EVERY president fires all the US attorneys at the beginning of a term. No one complained when Bush did. The problem was that he fired 8 of them in the MIDDLE of a term. Once appointed, US attorneys should not be removed for political reasons, it politicizes the justice department. So by pointing out that Clinton fired all the US attorneys, of course he did, but he didn't fire them mid term because they were investigating democrats for corruption.

[Sonthert]

Actually yes, I can have a civil discussion... and I love your post you just wrote for one thing.

You said, "I responded by trying to intentionally misinterpret what you were saying "

That's what pissed me off, not gonna lie.

You have to realize, I'm just not trying nearly as much as you, you read a response, take a day or 2 to right an essay, and post it. I just reply after I read, I'm pretty busy lately between school untill 2 then work from 3-11. After I read your post I would go ahead and reply. Oh, and I didn't finish one of your posts, but then I went back and read it.

Anyways, after I would say something, you would stretch what I said so much and say things like, "it's people like you who are prejudiced, and are anti american" or something close to that. You intentionally use that approach to try and bend the truth to accuse me of being racist, or supporting the war, etc.

Then the blaming soldiers, you did say that you COULD blame the soldiers at first, but then you came back and talk about how you do think it's the soldiers faults.

Also, your "fox impression" you did you said was just how all my responses are...When honestly, that's exactly the way you would reply by intentionally misinterperating something and trying to build up on your interpretation, like stretching me saying I don't like liberals to grouping me as a racist and against american freedoms.

And I brought up the war saying that you can tell about how the medias attitude is liberal by the way they talk about the war and blame bush for entering, when in reality many democrats also voted to go into the war. I not once said the war was a good idea, but you kept trying to argue that it wasn't, implying that I did support it. I don't like how everything comes up to be a debate for the Iraq war, and i never started one, you did.

And if you really feel threatened, for me saying I'd like to see if you still keep your offensive attitude against soldiers when your face to face with someone, then sorry, but toughen up there nancy. Just because you feel threatened doesn't mean it's a threat. I'll probably end up getting that 5-day vacation anyways though, because this will probably end up having as much justice as the real legal system. You're like the cop, except for any asshole can become a cop, atleast you became a mod for knowing hookah. Whatever, if you're that sensitive I guess I'll be serving that 5 days, nice threat with a ban by the way, does that mean you've got a vacation too?

Might as well throw this in there too, wasn't gonna say it earlier because I don't actually feel this way but oh well...
If your so concerned about every life lost, then why do you make a living off selling tobacco? Now it's someone's choice to smoke, but it's also someone's choice to enlist. And if you're going to argue that all iraqi's are innocents and having they're life taken, kinda like 2nd hand smoke... I suppose they could leave the room. but Iraqi's could step aside too. Now obviously I am not against tobacco at all, I'm just saying...

You really wouldn't know...would you? You don't know me, but you act like you know something about me. You talk about things and people like you know something. You assume you know. Thats exactly where prejudice and racism come from. Thats not a stretch. So, you're a bigot, so what. Live with it. You are the one who said "I hate liberals". Thats the definition of prejudice. Look it up.

Sure you can blame soldiers, if you want. You say "You can't blame the soldiers." People can blame anyone or anything they want. On second thought don't answer that. I really don't want to hear it.

Don't you worry, now. Loudmouths don't ever make me feel threatened. You thought you could be all macho and make a reference to your friend in the military and scare me, like we were 12 years old. Didn't work. I, too, have lots of friends in the military. You think you're tough. Oh, big scary guy. Not all liberals are scared little rabbits. I've met some liberals that will split a fucker's head open with an aluminum bat for being out of line. I think the problem is you are so used to everyone just putting up with the vile crap you spew out, you don't know how to handle someone who fires back, especially someone who is smarter and more educated.

You're the one being all angry and butthurt. Don't engage in serious discussions on the Forum if you can't deal with people who don't agree with you. If you don't know something to be true, try saying "I think". Try referencing sources other than Cable News and Wikipedia (Although that Wiki is so damned convenient). Before you start forming opinions, try hearing both sides of an issue. Cable News is hearing the same side of the story from different stations, I assure you.

Most of my responses take an hour or so to write. I compose extemporaneously primarily.

Now, now. Poking at the tobacco company. Why do you insist on trying to instigate shit, man? Why can't you just act like an adult?

I'm sure this has been terribly interesting for all concerned...I'm not going to hide this post, just lock it. Edited October 7, 2007 by Sonthert