T1B

Bizzarofelice wrote:

trev wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote: Afghanistan was justifiable revenge for 9/11.

You were not, are not and never for ANY war. You are against war.

Period.

And it's ok.

Go back to your spreadhseets and doublecheck, babygirl.

My bad, that was BSmack.

Seriously, I was hoping you would come clean though,
darling boy. It's actually not ok to be against the war, you
can't do that to our soldiers. I suppose mvscal is correct.

trev wrote:you can't do that to our soldiers.

They volunteered themselves to be pawns of the government. If they get caught up in a war 70% of the country thinks little of, its their own damned fault for enlisting.

I guess we play a part in all this because we voted in the retards who abuse the soldiers.

Sudden Sam wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote:viewtopic.php?t=16979&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0


Yes! You can all go support your great prez now.

When and where did you serve Sam ? Seems to me that if one must have served or be serving in order to believe their president and support those in the service ... then those condemning and spreading disbelief in the president and implying that our service men and women are wastes and wasting their time ... should have served as well.

So which is it Sam ?

Never in the military. I fell between idiotic wars.

My original suggestion holds: if anyone in here is so fired up backing W on this mess, get your ass over there and fight. If you're that damn sure this is a just war, then kill some "insurgents" instead of sitting at a computer and lettin' other folks die for you beliefs.

Bullshit Sam. You and I are sitting in the same boat and enjoying the same things, while other men die. Backing OUR president once the committment has been made is really the only choice.

Telling the families and the men and women that are sacrificing that their sacrifices were based in lies .... when you really don't have a fucking clue ... requires service. It requires actually losing some sleep, sweating and perhaps bleeding over there in order to make that assessment.

There are details, technicalities, and qualifications that need to be met in order serve. And yes, I'm fully aware of them, and fully aware of what I need to do and I have been doing it. The bottom line is, the Army dictates who it takes and who it doesn't.

In the end, I'll buy into the notion that ... I haven't earned the right to believe and support my president, because I have not and/or cannot serve. ... but by the same token ... those spreading their opinions to the contrary and spreading mistrust of the President of the U.S., condemning our soldiers first and the enemy second, and claiming that our men and women are sacrificing for a lie ..... haven't earned that right either.

Tom In VA wrote: Backing OUR president once the committment has been made is really the only choice.

Shit, i better go out and buy some ribbons for the back of my car.

Degenerate wrote:

Tom In VA wrote: Backing OUR president once the committment has been made is really the only choice.

Shit, i better go out and buy some ribbons for the back of my car.

And/or you could fuck off, troll.

Tom In VA wrote:

Degenerate wrote:

Tom In VA wrote: Backing OUR president once the committment has been made is really the only choice.

Shit, i better go out and buy some ribbons for the back of my car.

And/or you could fuck off, troll.

Similar empty gestures.

Rack Tom.

Bizzarofelice wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

Degenerate wrote: Shit, i better go out and buy some ribbons for the back of my car.

And/or you could fuck off, troll.

Similar empty gestures.

To an empty man such as yourself, perhaps.

Say we pull our troops out. Now. Just evacuate, like the Browns leaving Cleveland.

What then?

Fat Bones wrote:Say we pull our troops out. Now. Just evacuate, like the Browns leaving Cleveland.

What then?

The NFL would give us an expansion war in three years.

Tom In VA wrote:To an empty man such as yourself, perhaps.

Empty? I thought I was full of myself? I guess that's better than being so full of stupidity that it spills out onto message boards. There's also space for having your own head up your ass and talking point wad in your gullet.

Fat Bones wrote:Say we pull our troops out. Now. Just evacuate, like the Browns leaving Cleveland.

What then?

A spike in the population of VA hospital inpatients in Baltimore?

Bizzarofelice wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:To an empty man such as yourself, perhaps.

Empty? I thought I was full of myself? I guess that's better than being so full of stupidity that it spills out onto message boards. There's also space for having your own head up your ass and talking point wad in your gullet.

If being full of shit is filling, I'd say you've had quite enough.

Bizzarofelice wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:To an empty man such as yourself, perhaps.

I thought I was full of myself?

That's never been my assessment of your nic.

Fat Bones wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:To an empty man such as yourself, perhaps.

Empty? I thought I was full of myself? I guess that's better than being so full of stupidity that it spills out onto message boards. There's also space for having your own head up your ass and talking point wad in your gullet.

If being full of shit is filling, I'd say you've had quite enough.

You're too goddamned dimwitted to continue in this thread, FB. Find a sandbox or Diego party to find similar thinkers.

I hope the troops don't think they're fighting for your rights. I'd imagine they'd feel cheated if they were shown the mouthbreathers they put their lives on the line for. Honor their sacrifice and stop making an ass of yourself.

Tom In VA wrote:Backing OUR president once the committment has been made is really the only choice.

Wrong Tom. That's the way of the "good German" and a coward's way out.

BSmack wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:Backing OUR president once the committment has been made is really the only choice.

Wrong Tom. That's the way of the "good German" and a coward's way out.

Not in this instance. I find Bush and Clinton's rationale for war with Iraq, very sound. But nice try.

Tom In VA wrote:

BSmack wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:Backing OUR president once the committment has been made is really the only choice.

Wrong Tom. That's the way of the "good German" and a coward's way out.

Not in this instance. I find Bush and Clinton's rationale for war with Iraq, very sound. But nice try.

OK, so when are you going to the recruiters?

Sudden Sam wrote: First, I have never and would never condemn our soldiers. They have a job to do and they're doing the best they can under shitty circumstances. I have nothing but respect for anyone who is in their position.

Then you go tell them their loved ones were wasted for a lie. Face to face. Maybe join the "Westboro" crew. I mean that's how you really feel.

Sudden Sam wrote: Secondly, you suggest that to disagree with our president in this matter is wrong. To not disagree would be wrong. I have never been, nor will ever be, led around by the nose by any administration that engages in idiotic policy that puts the entire country at risk.

You're suggesting that if a future president invades Canada because he hates Molson beer, we should all be 100% behind him. Sorry...can't do it.

What a cop out. We're not talking about a bullshit comedy premise here Sam. We're talking about a war that has been brewing over the course of decades. We're talking about a country, Iraq, that had flaunted it's unwillingness to cooperate with the U.N. and presented a very tanglible threat in the region. Quite frankly, as it show, we're talking about issues that go far above your head.

Were a truly unjust war to be waged, I agree. This war, is not "unjust". The entire population of the world depends upon a stable middle east. Saddam's intent was to de-stablize the region and carve out HIS own dominion.

BSmack wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

BSmack wrote: Wrong Tom. That's the way of the "good German" and a coward's way out.

Not in this instance. I find Bush and Clinton's rationale for war with Iraq, very sound. But nice try.

OK, so when are you going to the recruiters?

Once again, you lose.

Tom In VA wrote:

BSmack wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:Backing OUR president once the committment has been made is really the only choice.

Wrong Tom. That's the way of the "good German" and a coward's way out.

Not in this instance. I find Bush and Clinton's rationale for war with Iraq, very sound. But nice try.

Then you're saying two different things. In the first case, your rationale for support is that a commitment has been made, right or wrong. In the second, you say you support him because you agree with the reasons given for committing troops. If you truly agree with the rationale, fine. But if you don't, then BSmack is right.

Tom In VA wrote:We're talking about a war that has been brewing over the course of decades.

We're talking about a country, Iraq, that had flaunted it's unwillingness to cooperate with the U.N.

Since when did we listen to the UN?

presented a very tanglible threat in the region.

I'm glad we were there to help our buddies Iran.

we're talking about issues that go far above your head.

The entire population of the world depends upon a stable middle east.

Oh shit that's funny.

Bush's intent was to de-stablize the region and carve out HIS own dominion.

fixed

Smackie Chan wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

BSmack wrote: Wrong Tom. That's the way of the "good German" and a coward's way out.

Not in this instance. I find Bush and Clinton's rationale for war with Iraq, very sound. But nice try.

Then you're saying two different things. In the first case, your rationale for support is that a commitment has been made, right or wrong.

There was an assumption the "reader", i.e. Sudden Sam, is and has been familiar with my "takes" on this conflict in general. I never intended my statement to be taken out of the context of the current conflict.

Bizzarofelice wrote:Caca

Have a take and don't suck Bace. Why don't you try to prop your opinions as being your own and not handed down from "the other side's" talking points, that's always a hoot.

B'Felice,

Now it's your turn to enlighten me, oh "great thinker". What would you do differently? Pray tell, just a crumb of vast intelligence.

Show me something besides your vacuous and insipid drivel. An original idea perhaps? Just a suggestion.

Tom In VA wrote:We're talking about a country, Iraq, that had flaunted it's unwillingness to cooperate with the U.N.

It's not like the UN has this great track record at backing up its resolutions with real consequences. With the way the security council is run there's no way they can be an effective organization at dealing with international conflicts of this type. Humanitarian issues? yes. Conflicts where every SC member agrees? yes. All other problems? No.

The entire population of the world depends upon a stable middle east. Saddam's intent was to de-stablize the region and carve out HIS own dominion.

I don't disagree with the result of the invasion, but I do disagree with the method.

Tom In VA wrote:

Degenerate wrote:

Tom In VA wrote: Backing OUR president once the committment has been made is really the only choice.

Shit, i better go out and buy some ribbons for the back of my car.

And/or you could fuck off, troll.

Aren't cheerleaders at risk of being thrown off the pom squad for foul language?

Better watch your mouth from now on, "soldier".

Tom In VA wrote:

BSmack wrote:

Tom In VA wrote: Not in this instance. I find Bush and Clinton's rationale for war with Iraq, very sound. But nice try.

OK, so when are you going to the recruiters?

Once again, you lose.

I lose? If you stay, someone I value is not putting their life on the line for this fucked up policy. I just wish you would come correct.

Mister Bushice wrote:.... but I do disagree with the method.

Should you be allowed to without having served ? That's the whole issue here. Support or dissent, is something that should be earned. According to Sam and BSmack. I'm about 90% ready to rack them both for being right.

Degenerate wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

Degenerate wrote: Shit, i better go out and buy some ribbons for the back of my car.

And/or you could fuck off, troll.

Aren't cheerleaders at risk of being thrown off the pom squad for foul language?

Better watch your mouth from now on, "soldier".

Well we wouldn't want that now, would we, so how about you ingest fecal matter and expire such that I might be able to relieve my bladder on thy grave.

Tom In VA wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:.... but I do disagree with the method.

Should you be allowed to without having served ? That's the whole issue here. Support or dissent, is something that should be earned. According to Sam and BSmack. I'm about 90% ready to rack them both for being right.

Whether or not someone has served should have 0% to do with their God-given and Constitutionally cited right to freedom of speech, whether that speech is in support or dissent. Whether or not you served, you still get ONE frigging vote.

Tom In VA wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:.... but I do disagree with the method.

Should you be allowed to without having served ? That's the whole issue here. Support or dissent, is something that should be earned. According to Sam and BSmack. I'm about 90% ready to rack them both for being right.

Yes I should be. The bill of rights out front should have told you. I was born with the right to express my opinion. Elected leaders have not always acted in the best interest of this country and/or its citizens. If that were so, the constitution and bill of rights would not be necessary.

I grew up in between wars, and I am now no longer eligible to serve. However if we were attacked HERE then Yes, I would take up arms to defend.

I disagree that the current conflict in iraq is protecting us here. The insurgents over there now are mostly regional locals who would never have been able to make a trip to the US to attack us, or else they are religious factional fighters in a 1,400 year old sectarian conflict we will never stop.

Mister Bushice wrote:The insurgents over there now are mostly regional locals who would never have been able to make a trip to the US to attack us, or else they are religious factional fighters in a 1,400 year old sectarian conflict we will never stop.

Doesn't take a whole lot of money for 19 tickets to get on a bird that will send me to hell and kill a few thousand people in your back yard, cunt.

Sin,

Bizzarofelice wrote:

I like it.

BTW.

Personally, I do wish I wasn't such a loser and was able to "put my money where my mouth is" and place myself in the company of these brave men and women. Reality is a bitch and it is what it is.

I happened to catch "Band of Brothers" on HBO around Memorial Day and during the interview portion, Malarkey (I think) said several men from his hometown committed suicide when they were found to be 4F. Don't get your hopes up clones, I ain't planning that. But I understand it.

I sure as hell understand it.

So, yeah, I'm a loser not good enough for the military. I can't don a uniform and fight. But I also can't tell this man ....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/28/soldie ... index.html

His son died for reasons other than ... "I'm devastated, sad and proud," Plouhar said. "This just makes me devoted even more to his belief that people need help in Iraq, and he felt that he was helping."

Nope, not me. If being here for morale and material support is all I can do, it's all I can do. If anyone has a problem with that, I'm willing to address it.

Tom In VA wrote: Were a truly unjust war to be waged, I agree. This war, is not "unjust".

Well, in the context of your argument, this is called begging the question.

Otherwise, your judgment that this war is just is meaningless taken with your earlier statements that the President *must* be supported once he has committed his country to war.

Sudden Sam wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote: First, I have never and would never condemn our soldiers. They have a job to do and they're doing the best they can under shitty circumstances. I have nothing but respect for anyone who is in their position.

Then you go tell them their loved ones were wasted for a lie. Face to face.

I think anyone who has lost loved ones in Iraq is already painfully aware of that fact.

You would be mistaken, in several instances, at least.

Sudden Sam wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote:
I think anyone who has lost loved ones in Iraq is already painfully aware of that fact.

You would be mistaken, in several instances, at least.

If I lost a son, I would prefer to remain deluded also.

And there it is.

I would totally enlist if I could still be a dj. I'd be all like "Goooooooood morning, Karradah Sharqiyah!" It would be pretty funny.

Fat Bones wrote:What would you do differently?

About exactly what? Be definitive.