T1B

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:25 am**

Joel comes and says out loud what the moveon/DU crowd all really think...

Joel Stein:
Warriors and wusses
I DON'T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.

I'm sure I'd like the troops. They seem gutsy, young and up for anything. If you're wandering into a recruiter's office and signing up for eight years of unknown danger, I want to hang with you in Vegas.

And I've got no problem with other people — the ones who were for the Iraq war — supporting the troops. If you think invading Iraq was a good idea, then by all means, support away. Load up on those patriotic magnets and bracelets and other trinkets the Chinese are making money off of.

But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.

Blindly lending support to our soldiers, I fear, will keep them overseas longer by giving soft acquiescence to the hawks who sent them there — and who might one day want to send them somewhere else. Trust me, a guy who thought 50.7% was a mandate isn't going to pick up on the subtleties of a parade for just service in an unjust war. He's going to be looking for funnel cake.

Besides, those little yellow ribbons aren't really for the troops. They need body armor, shorter stays and a USO show by the cast of "Laguna Beach."

The real purpose of those ribbons is to ease some of the guilt we feel for voting to send them to war and then making absolutely no sacrifices other than enduring two Wolf Blitzer shows a day. Though there should be a ribbon for that.

I understand the guilt. We know we're sending recruits to do our dirty work, and we want to seem grateful.

After we've decided that we made a mistake, we don't want to blame the soldiers who were ordered to fight. Or even our representatives, who were deceived by false intelligence. And certainly not ourselves, who failed to object to a war we barely understood.

But blaming the president is a little too easy. The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying. An army of people ignoring their morality, by the way, is also Jack Abramoff's pet name for the House of Representatives.

I do sympathize with people who joined up to protect our country, especially after 9/11, and were tricked into fighting in Iraq. I get mad when I'm tricked into clicking on a pop-up ad, so I can only imagine how they feel.

But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam.

And sometimes, for reasons I don't understand, you get to just hang out in Germany.

I know this is all easy to say for a guy who grew up with money, did well in school and hasn't so much as served on jury duty for his country. But it's really not that easy to say because anyone remotely affiliated with the military could easily beat me up, and I'm listed in the phone book.

I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades.

Seriously, the traffic is insufferable.

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:28 am**

An America hating, ungrateful Jew.
Who'd have thought?

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:40 am**

What would you know about honesty?

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:41 am**

Mace wrote:I thought maybe Sandy Koufax was coming out of the closet in this thread. My bad.

Mace

Or it could be Mickelson admitting that he wears a "bro" at night.

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:13 am**

Dio is slipping. I guess his extended George Will jerk session ate into his Drudge reading time.

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:43 am**

It doesn't count when His name is only in the disclaimer.

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:56 am**

Arguing with TVblOw is pointless.

At least his Canadian buttfucked buddies are manly with their shit trolls.

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 4:00 am**

Mace wrote:
BSmack wrote:Dio is slipping. I guess his extended George Will jerk session ate into his Drudge reading time.
Did Dio post in this thread? I must have missed that.

For the record, this thread is all about me and Mikey (and anyone else) coming up with witty little things about lefties being honest.....and the words Dio and witty have very rarely, if ever, been used in the same sentence (this may be a first).

Mace

Thing is, I can't make any devastating comebacks at you for your fat comment, because nobody ever accused you of being a lefty.

What am I gonna do?
:?

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 4:24 am**

Atomic Punk wrote:Arguing with TVblOw is pointless.

Hey tard, he was agreeing with me.

Do you ever get ANYTHING right?

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 4:54 am**

Mace wrote:
Mikey wrote:
Mace wrote: Did Dio post in this thread? I must have missed that.

For the record, this thread is all about me and Mikey (and anyone else) coming up with witty little things about lefties being honest.....and the words Dio and witty have very rarely, if ever, been used in the same sentence (this may be a first).

Mace
Thing is, I can't make any devastating comebacks at you for your fat comment, because nobody ever accused you of being a lefty.

What am I gonna do?
:?
Well.....I voted for McGovern in '72. Does that count? Musta been the weed we were smokin' at the time.

Mace

Damn.

You're no liberal.
You're a card-carrying Commie pinko peacenik.

Welcome to the club.

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 5:17 am**

I didn't read any posts in this thread and wanted to express how I never read any posts by the Republican parties spam wizard.

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:40 am**

Make a point about the agneda of DU and moveon (notice I didn't say anything about dems in general) and look who comes running....

Pretty much the exact list of hypocritical tools I expected.

Props, losers.

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:17 pm**

'More than two opinions in the world on the war' shock.

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:18 pm**

Atomic Punk wrote:Arguing with gunslinger is 90% of my time on this board

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:56 pm**

Diogenes wrote:Make a point about the agneda of DU and moveon (notice I didn't say anything about dems in general) and look who comes running....

Pretty much the exact list of hypocritical tools I expected.

Props, losers.

You didn't make any point at all, unless C&Ping an opinion piece counts as making a point. And who are you to say what anybody else "really thinks"?

Joel Stein is a fucking idiot and speaks for nobody but himself. He should stick to his usual subject of the tribulations of being an unappreciated script writer in Hollyweird. I can see how you would find him completely compelling, though. Props, I guess.

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:58 pm**

Bizzarofelice wrote:
Atomic Punk wrote:Bitch slapping tards is 9% of my time on this board

FTFY you tree hugging hippie.

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 4:29 pm**

We prosecute Nazis for following commands, why are American soldiers different?

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 5:00 pm**

Bizzarofelice wrote:We prosecute Nazis for following commands, why are American soldiers different?

Why do you hate freedom?

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 5:15 pm**

mvscal wrote:Our soldiers are following lawful orders

According to US law. The German soldiers were following German law but were prosecuted under a different set of laws.

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 5:34 pm**

Bizzarofelice wrote:
mvscal wrote:Our soldiers are following lawful orders
According to US law. The German soldiers were following German law but were prosecuted under a different set of laws.

The laws of humanity do not apply to the United States. We are fighting for freedom so if we torture a few thousand people and kill a hundred thousand or so innocent civilians, then you should just shut the hell up and not exercise any of your Constitutional rights.

That is, unless YOU have something to hide.

sin

The New Riech

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 5:43 pm**

mvscal wrote:I'm an uniformed dumbfuck

Got it.

Now, would you like to add something to the discussion, or shall we fling poo?

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 6:07 pm**

mvscal wrote:You call comparing the Iraq War to the deliberate genocide of the Nazi Holocaust a "discussion"?

This is not a zero sum game.

Doncha hate it when your own buzzwords come crashing into your upper sigmoid?

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 6:08 pm**

If the troops had the independence and brains to tell W to do his dirty work for himself they wouldn't be good troops. That is why we are supposed to elect leaders with enough brains to not send them into the wrong place where they will, inevitably, do their job*.

* If any are torturing or killing innocents they should be dealt with as that is not their job and if torture and killing innocents is made to be their job those higher up should also be dealt with.

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 7:28 pm**

mvscal wrote:You call comparing the Iraq War to the deliberate genocide of the Nazi Holocaust a "discussion"?

Can't get over the vague generalities of the term "Nazi" can you? Those who don't often deal in facts have such problems.

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:05 pm**

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote:You call comparing the Iraq War to the deliberate genocide of the Nazi Holocaust a "discussion"?
This is not a zero sum game.

Doncha hate it when your own buzzwords come crashing into your upper sigmoid?

Except that your use of the phrase makes no sense and clearly illuminates the fact that you don't know what it means. The only thing crashing into your upper sigmoid is your cranium.

Still using overreacting as a defense mechanisim?

Got it.

Posted: **Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:43 am**

If the troops had the independence and brains to tell W to do his dirty work for himself they wouldn't be good troops.

The fact that the vast majority of them voted to re-elect Bush pretty much says where they stand and shows a lot more intelligence than you losers.

Posted: **Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:45 am**

BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote: This is not a zero sum game.

Doncha hate it when your own buzzwords come crashing into your upper sigmoid?

Except that your use of the phrase makes no sense and clearly illuminates the fact that you don't know what it means. The only thing crashing into your upper sigmoid is your cranium.
Still using overreacting as a defense mechanisim?

Got it.

No he's just pointing out that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

As usual.

Posted: **Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:46 am**

Diogenes wrote:If the troops had the independence and brains to tell W to do his dirty work for himself they wouldn't be good troops.

The fact that the vast majority of them voted to re-elect Bush pretty much says where they stand and shows a lot more intelligence than you losers.

Ironic then that almost all of the returning Iraq War vets running for office are doing so as DEMOCRATS.

Posted: **Fri Jan 27, 2006 1:11 am**

BSmack wrote:
Diogenes wrote:If the troops had the independence and brains to tell W to do his dirty work for himself they wouldn't be good troops.

The fact that the vast majority of them voted to re-elect Bush pretty much says where they stand and shows a lot more intelligence than you losers.
Ironic then that almost all of the returning Iraq War vets running for office are doing so as DEMOCRATS.

That's because the majority are either volunteering to stay there or getting a real job instead of running for office.

No big surprise that the fringe malcontents would run as Dems.

Posted: **Fri Jan 27, 2006 1:16 am**

Diogenes wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Diogenes wrote:If the troops had the independence and brains to tell W to do his dirty work for himself they wouldn't be good troops.

The fact that the vast majority of them voted to re-elect Bush pretty much says where they stand and shows a lot more intelligence than you losers.
Ironic then that almost all of the returning Iraq War vets running for office are doing so as DEMOCRATS.
That's because the majority are either volunteering to stay there or getting a real job instead of running for office.

No big surprise that the fringe malcontents would run as Dems.

Kool Aid tasty today?

Posted: **Fri Jan 27, 2006 1:23 am**

BSmack wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
BSmack wrote: Ironic then that almost all of the returning Iraq War vets running for office are doing so as DEMOCRATS.
That's because the majority are either volunteering to stay there or getting a real job instead of running for office.

No big surprise that the fringe malcontents would run as Dems.
Kool Aid tasty today.

You seem to be addicted to the shit.

Posted: **Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:44 am**

BSmack wrote: Ironic then that almost all of the returning Iraq War vets running for office are doing so as DEMOCRATS.

Don't worry. Their "swiftboating" will come soon enough.

Posted: **Fri Jan 27, 2006 3:00 am**

Martyred wrote:
BSmack wrote: Ironic then that almost all of the returning Iraq War vets running for office are doing so as DEMOCRATS.
Don't worry. Their "swiftboating" will come soon enough.

Which ones do you think are negotiating with Al Queda or attacking the troops still in the field?

Posted: **Fri Jan 27, 2006 3:11 am**

Diogenes wrote:
Martyred wrote:
BSmack wrote: Ironic then that almost all of the returning Iraq War vets running for office are doing so as DEMOCRATS.
Don't worry. Their "swiftboating" will come soon enough.
Which ones do you think are negotiating with Al Queda or attacking the troops still in the field?

Who's "negotiating" today?

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=hotnews&alt=&t ... 5&hn=29014

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/ ... oners.html

Hmmmmm....

Posted: **Fri Jan 27, 2006 3:32 am**

Martyred wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Martyred wrote: Don't worry. Their "swiftboating" will come soon enough.
Which ones do you think are negotiating with Al Queda or attacking the troops still in the field?
Who's "negotiating" today?

Not any of the returning vets that I know of.

Then again, a veteran who had all of his peers saying he was unfit for office would be one you could support (if you weren't an irrelevant Canuck).

And no, I didn't click the links.

Posted: **Fri Jan 27, 2006 4:08 am**

Martyred wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Martyred wrote: Don't worry. Their "swiftboating" will come soon enough.
Which ones do you think are negotiating with Al Queda or attacking the troops still in the field?
Who's "negotiating" today?

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=hotnews&alt=&t ... 5&hn=29014

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/ ... oners.html

Hmmmmm....

A Republican negotiating with terrorists????

Say it ain't so!

sin

Ollie North and John Poindexter

Posted: **Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:07 pm**

mvscal wrote:It's called divide and conquer, dumbfuck. We are successfully driving a wedge between Iraqi insurgents and the foreign al-Qaeda fighters.

So that's what the kids are calling negotiating with terrorists these days?

Posted: **Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:07 pm**

mvscal wrote:Why are you so eager for us to lose this war?

Can't speak for BSmack, just me -- that war was lost before the first soldier hit the beach, and anyone with half a brain (sup not mvscal) knew it, since occupations of Middle Eastern countries have worked out so well, historically.

Whenm you lie and your cause is not just, you will NEVER get support for violent actions. The agressor in an unneccessary war is NEVER going to get much support, except for from blind flag-waving wannabe "patriots."

It's a gross mischaraterization of the other point of view (from the right??? HUH???? Who woulda thunk it?) to say any American wants to "lose" the war, dumbfuck. I'm pretty sure they just want to keep the losses minimal in what is ALREADY a losing effort. The thing that makes America great isn't its military, it isn't its ability to police the world, and it isn't some stupid system of feudalism that benefits a few, but is bought into by many -- what makes America great is Americans...the number of which is shrinking faster than need be, because the political situation got away from us, and a bunch of power-mad profiteers took control.

But go ahead and keep lying to try and make your point -- it worked for W.

Posted: **Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:14 pm**

mvscal wrote:Why are you so eager for us to lose this war?

We already lost. Let's just get it over with and stop wasting taxpayer cash and soldier life.

Posted: **Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:39 pm**

mvscal wrote:Why are you so eager for us to lose this war?

'Eager to lose?' We have already won. We busted in and took SH's WMDs from him didn't we?

T1B

Finally an honest lefty.

Finally an honest lefty.