Page 6 of 24 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 237

Thread: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    Speaking out against unnecessary wars and occupations is the #1 way to support our Troops.
    Yeah, before the event occurs.

    After, it's just ignorant.

  2. #52
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    04-12-09 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    342

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    While I disagree with the vandalizing there is a similar action found in Jesus clearing the Temple with a whip. The purpose of the Temple was to offer reconciliation with God and find Peace in Atonement. However, the client-kings crapped all over that through endless means of extortion, deception and slavery. The purpose of a Recruiting station is to offer Americans the chance to Serve in the Military and protect our Nation. Like the Temple, those who run our military have engaged in deception (Iraq/Afghanistan), Slavery (Stop-
    Loss...which is a fancy term for "You can't leave until we say you can.), and extortion (Support Our Military or you HATE our Troops!)

    So while I don't agree with nor condone the vandalism, it's a bit of a stretch to dismiss it simply as communist whackos. It isn't anti-American to have at least some intellectual breathing room, is it?

  3. #53
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    The purpose of a Recruiting station is to offer Americans the chance to Serve in the Military and protect our Nation. Like the Temple, those who run our military have engaged in deception (Iraq/Afghanistan), Slavery (Stop-
    Loss...which is a fancy term for "You can't leave until we say you can.), and extortion (Support Our Military or you HATE our Troops!)
    As some would say -- Epic Fail.

    Stop-loss is part of the contract you sign when you join. You know, when you join, that you can have your contract extended, indefinitely.

    Nice try, tho.

  4. #54
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I see no valid reason for having been in Iraq, nor do I think it foolish to continually protest bad and improper government action.
    Valid Reason #1:
    It puts US troops on Iran's western border to complement the threat we pose on the easter/southern border with Afghanland.

    Valid Reason #2:
    Hussein's harboring of terrorists. Want to deny this? Want to pretend it's not true? Explain Abu Nidal's presence in Iraq. Pretend Hussein wasn't aware of him.

    Valid Reason #3: Given the intel at the time, WMD's was a valid concern.

    Valid Reason #4: Hussein's repeated violations of the 1991 cease fire agreements and his repeated attacks on US aircraft enforcing those agreements.

    Valid Reason #5:
    The President of the United States talked us into a corner and left no room for backing down. Always a foolish thing, as anyone who's read "The Origins of War" can see clearly.

    Valid Reason #6:
    Hussein had not legitimate claim to the throne and anyone using force had as legitimate reason to over throw him as he did when he took it. Therefore "valid reasons" weren't necessary. This is good, because #5 sucks as a reason.

  5. #55
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    04-12-09 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    342

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    As some would say -- Epic Fail.

    Stop-loss is part of the contract you sign when you join. You know, when you join, that you can have your contract extended, indefinitely.

    Nice try, tho.



    Lol. There was a response to 1/3 of the post and that qualifies as "Epic Fail?" Is the hyperbole pipe being passed around?

    Stop Loss is not a part of the Contract. It is something that can be instituted or withdrawn at anytime, which is why Second of Def Gates has recently rescinded the program. If it was "part of the contract" it would not be carte blanche. There is a part of the contract for IRR committments (inactive ready reserves) which means once your enlisted term is up and you've left the military it can call you back to active duty for up to 8 years after your last date of service.

    No matter how many decorations are used, Stop-Loss is Slavery, pure and simple.

  6. #56
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    Lol. There was a response to 1/3 of the post and that qualifies as "Epic Fail?" Is the hyperbole pipe being passed around?
    I addressed the only part of your argument that wasnt based on simple partisan opinion. THAT, I ignored for the blah-blah-blah that it was.

    Stop Loss is not a part of the Contract.
    Have you read your service contract?

  7. #57
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Later on...




    Damn, figure it out.

    Once we crossed the Rubicon...or the Tigris in this case....we were committed. The consequences of breaking Iraq and then running away, as you recommend, are clearly more harmful to our interests than remaining to repair the damage done.

    It's that simple.

    It's so simple I'm going to allow you the grand experience of identifying what the consequences of the course you proposed would have been.
    We've broken many countries and ran away, or trained death squads, or participated in coups. The idea is to stop it. Saddam wasn't going to do anything, nor was there substantial proof he would. He was running his mouth to seem like a big man, but dollars to donuts says he liked being in charge and would have done more to stay in charge. We need to quit messing around in other people's business, so what are the consequences for us not going into Iraq? There's a despot in charge...fine, we're obviously ok with despots in general cause we do nothing about Africa. We save money, American lives, and could properly focus on Afghanistan.

    I don't see how you think we're doing good through half-assed imperialism.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  8. #58
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    04-12-09 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    342

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Valid Reason #1:
    It puts US troops on Iran's western border to complement the threat we pose on the easter/southern border with Afghanland.

    Valid Reason #2:
    Hussein's harboring of terrorists. Want to deny this? Want to pretend it's not true? Explain Abu Nidal's presence in Iraq. Pretend Hussein wasn't aware of him.

    Valid Reason #3: Given the intel at the time, WMD's was a valid concern.

    Valid Reason #4: Hussein's repeated violations of the 1991 cease fire agreements and his repeated attacks on US aircraft enforcing those agreements.

    Valid Reason #5:
    The President of the United States talked us into a corner and left no room for backing down. Always a foolish thing, as anyone who's read "The Origins of War" can see clearly.

    Valid Reason #6:
    Hussein had not legitimate claim to the throne and anyone using force had as legitimate reason to over throw him as he did when he took it. Therefore "valid reasons" weren't necessary. This is good, because #5 sucks as a reason.

    #1--Imperialism is not a "valid" anything.

    #2--so what? The #1 financier of terrorism in the world is Saudi Arabia. If we are reacting to the "terror threat" why did we go after one of the smallest fish in the pond?

    #3--i didn't think anyone sober still tried to make that argument. The CIA Chief of Europe went to the White House in August/Sept 02' to point out there was no valid evidence of WMD and even Rumsfeld said in Oct 02' one of the problems of invading iraq is that WMD may not be found. But all of that aside, common sense tells us the Bush admin knew there were no WMD. Can anyone guess how?

    #4--the cease fire agreement was made with the UN, not the US and it never authorized a military response without UNSC approval. So in the desperation of trying to defend the invasion peeps always undermine their own position when referencing the cease fire.

    #5--ummm...okay.

    #6--even if true, so what? We had no legitimate reason to invade iraq or afghanistan so that means Russia can invade us, right? Or is this howdy doody double standard time?

  9. #59
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Valid Reason #1:
    It puts US troops on Iran's western border to complement the threat we pose on the easter/southern border with Afghanland.
    We can get in other places. Wanting to invade another country which can't directly threaten America isn't justification for occupation of different country which couldn't directly threaten us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Valid Reason #2:
    Hussein's harboring of terrorists. Want to deny this? Want to pretend it's not true? Explain Abu Nidal's presence in Iraq. Pretend Hussein wasn't aware of him.
    Not widespread, no terrorist camps in operation. You'll have to prove otherwise. Hearsay and coincidence don't justify invasion and occupation. You're gonna need real data. And if that's the case, why ain't we going after Saudi Arabia...oh, wait...

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Valid Reason #3: Given the intel at the time, WMD's was a valid concern.
    Invented data is not proper justification, and there was nothing Saddam could do to use those WMD against us even if he had them, nor is there any indication he'd ever use them against the United States (it would be incredibly dumb to do such a thing).

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Valid Reason #4: Hussein's repeated violations of the 1991 cease fire agreements and his repeated attacks on US aircraft enforcing those agreements.
    This could be handled through the UN since y'all seem to love that institution so much. These aren't reasons for invasion, overthrow of a government, and imperialistic occupation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Valid Reason #5:
    The President of the United States talked us into a corner and left no room for backing down. Always a foolish thing, as anyone who's read "The Origins of War" can see clearly.
    Running one's mouth is not proper justification for war. Actual threats and attacks to soveriegnty can be; not all war goes to overthrow of government and imperialistic occupation. Everything depends on the reality and nature of the threats and/or actions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Valid Reason #6:
    Hussein had not legitimate claim to the throne and anyone using force had as legitimate reason to over throw him as he did when he took it. Therefore "valid reasons" weren't necessary. This is good, because #5 sucks as a reason.
    That's not our concern (and we helped put Saddam's party in charge). Government derives it's authority from the governed, thus it is the Iraqi people whom gave credibility to the Iraqi government. The course and leadership of Iraq was not, is not, rightfully up to us. If the Iraqi people had a problem with Saddam, they should have revolted. It is their problem and their duty, not the US. Less you want to show me where in the Constitution it says that the US military is to "spread democracy".
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  10. #60
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    #4--the cease fire agreement was made with the UN, not the US and it never authorized a military response without UNSC approval. So in the desperation of trying to defend the invasion peeps always undermine their own position when referencing the cease fire.
    False. For all the meaning it has, the UN ratified the cease-fire between the Coalition and Iraq. The cease-fire was on 2-28; the UN resolution passed on 4-3.

    The agreement itself was between the members of the coalition and Iraq, not the UN and Iraq.

    When the terms of a ceae-fire are broken, the cease fire may be held by any or all of the parties to be no longer in effect; the default position is that the parties involved may, without further comment, resume hostilities.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 03-24-09 at 03:32 PM.

Page 6 of 24 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •