Page 8 of 24 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 237

Thread: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

  1. #71
    Educator bilbus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Seen
    10-22-09 @ 07:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    629

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    I said

    Quote Originally Posted by bilbus View Post
    Argue all you want before the war, and after the war is over. [B]But when we are in a conflict shut up and support our solders.
    The left fought their hardest to get us to lose the war.

    How many times have we heard General betrayus.
    Talk of surrender
    pulling out
    Lost cause
    Calling our solders murders

    You can be unhappy about the war, but when we are at war you should do your best to help it succeed.
    George W. Bush is a liberal.

  2. #72
    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
    #1--Imperialism is not a "valid" anything.
    The United States is not an imperialist nation. Your rebuttal to that effect is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    #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?
    Reason #1. The #1 national supporter of international terrorism is Iran.

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    #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?
    Meanwhile, I didn't beleive anyone still breathing could claim they're supporting the troops while stabbing them in the back and hampering them in the completion of their mission.

    Whatever, fact of the matter is that the intel at hand with the Administration was that WMD's in Iraq were a possible threat.

    No, I don't waste time keeping track of all the propaganda bull**** the pacifist socialists leak out all over the place, I just deal with the facts and I'm not going to bother tracking down if what you just said is actually true, or just some Sheehan Delusion. It doesn't matter, becuase it's only one of the many valid reasons.

    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.
    Since it was the US getting their American airplanes painted with enemy radar, since the UN doesn't have any troops of it's own, since the UN is a corrupt POS tool hampering US sovereignity at every turn, since the UN is a totally irrelevant and useless committee....Hussein was violating a cease fire agreement with the US, and the US had the right to respond in a meaningful way if it so chose.

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    #5--ummm...okay.
    Yeah. That's pretty much it for that. I do recommend that book, though.

    Among other things, it shows what a complete incompetent boob Kennedy was over the Bay of Pigs.

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyCore View Post
    #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?
    Well, you just failed the ability to reason independently test.

    Last time I checked, the United States doesn't have a government established by gangsters. Maybe you know more about the Democrats than those of us not in the club are privy to?

  3. #73
    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
    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.
    The justification is that no justification is necessary for a free nation to choose to topple a nation run by thugs.

    Period.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    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...
    Abu Nidal wasn't "hearsay". Nor was his murder at that time a "coincidence".

    Those are facts, and hence "real data".

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    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).
    Only if it's known to be a fabrication when it is used.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    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.
    The UN is as effective as a hard-on on an ox.

    There was no imperialist occupation of Iraq.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    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.
    Read the book.

    There was no imperialist occupation of Iraq.

    You don't know what reality is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    That's not our concern (and we helped put Saddam's party in charge).
    And we removed Saddam's party from power. How poetic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Government derives it's authority from the governed, thus it is the Iraqi people whom gave credibility to the Iraqi government.
    Right.

    Hussein garnered 99% of the vote, and the dissenting 1% were murdered. That gave his regime complete credibility in your eyes.

    Not in people who's eyes are open, but you didn't see any problems with what Hussein did.

    BTW, you've stated, in the space of two sentences, that the US put Hussein in power, and that Hussein had the blessings of the Iraqi people. Now, if Hussein had the blessings of the Iraqi people, he had no need of US power to ascend his throne. So one of your statements is clearly incorrect, if not both of them. Which one are you going to admit was false?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    The course and leadership of Iraq was not, is not, rightfully up to us.
    So you're claiming that the US didn't help put Hussein in power, is that it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    If the Iraqi people had a problem with Saddam, they should have revolted.
    What did your hero Mao say? Oh, yeah, political power comes from the mouth of a gun.

    You really never have studied the faintest shreds of the real history of the Twentieth Century, have you? Do you honestly believe the Russians wanted to become Stalin's slaves? That Mao had to have legitimacy, because he managed to hang onto power all that time? That Pol Pot was right, becuase the people in Cambodia didn't succeed in revolting? That the people of Germany were happy under Hitler and the Gestapo? That the people in the Warsaw Block countries were happy because they didn't revolt?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    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".
    Never said that. I said it wasn't wrong to intervene where necessary. What the Constitution does say is that the Congress has the power to declare war. It does not specify ANY limitations on what the basis of the declaration might be. The Congress did declare war on Iraq to all intents and purposes, so the Constitutional requirements were met.

    Oh, and BTW, liberals aren't allowed to use the Constitution in their arguments. No one likes to see someone else's used toilet paper waved in their face.

  4. #74
    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
    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.


    "The Security Council passed Resolution 687 as part of the cease-fire arrangements ending operation Desert Storm."
    http://www.mideastweb.org/687.htm

    Please show us where the UN Authorized military actions may resume unilaterally? Iam not asking for a Limbaugher Cheese style re-writing of the Resolution. Just cite from the Resolution the authorization of unilateral military action.

    As for the Stop Loss. There's some hair splitting happening. Yes, I am aware under the contract Stop Loss may be put into effect but my point was it's not a static part of the Contract. Iow, the US may keep Troops in the military for however long it wants. As I already said, Stop Loss is Slavery. That can't be dismissed by "provisions" of a Contract. If it was a static part of the contract it would always be in effect, but as Gates just demonstrated, it is not.

  5. #75
    Just Crazy Enough to Work
    Edify_Always_In_All_Ways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    Last Seen
    01-31-14 @ 03:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,299

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    What happened to the OP?
    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat
    Heh. Do you realize how many children I'd murder to be immortal and have an army of willing slaves?

  6. #76
    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
    We've broken many countries and ran away, or trained death squads, or participated in coups.
    And sometimes it's justified, like in Nicaragua, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

    What's your problem?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    The idea is to stop it.
    The idea is to use tools properly.

    As was done in Nicaragua, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Saddam wasn't going to do anything, nor was there substantial proof he would.
    It was time for him to go. He was in the way.

    Are you now going to argue that Iraq would be better off today if Hussein had been ignored? (Yeah, I know you will. You've already shown an amazing disconnect from reality.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    He was running his mouth to seem like a big man,
    Life's a bitch, ain't it? I've gotten in a fight or two because I've said things better left unsaid. Looks like Hussein said the wrong thing finally, and swung by the neck as a result.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    but dollars to donuts says he liked being in charge and would have done more to stay in charge.
    Yeah, whatever.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    We need to quit messing around in other people's business, so what are the consequences for us not going into Iraq?
    No. The correct question is what would the consequences have been for not invading Iraq? Your question has no meaning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    There's a despot in charge...fine, we're obviously ok with despots in general cause we do nothing about Africa.
    You define "despot" as "democratically elected leader with constitutionally limited authority and a parliamentary system of government"?

    That's really strange of you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    We save money, American lives, and could properly focus on Afghanistan.
    Save money....not with liberals in Congress we don't...not ever. We don't spend money on the militar is all you meant.

    American lives....debatable...Hussein was setting himself up as a more proactive exporter of terrorism.

    Not that you care about that....let me guess, you opposed the invasion of Afghanland too...you must have...you babble about the non-existent "imperialist" United States.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I don't see how you think we're doing good through half-assed imperialism.
    See what I mean?

    Since I haven't said we're doing good through any form of imperialism, a practice we're not engaging in, you don't see an awful lot.

  7. #77
    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 Security Council passed Resolution 687 as part of the cease-fire arrangements ending operation Desert Storm."
    UN Security Council Resolution 687 -1991
    Did you read my post?
    UNSCR687 was in April. The cease-fire took hold in February.

    Please show us where the UN Authorized military actions may resume unilaterally?
    Did you read my post?
    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

    As for the Stop Loss. There's some hair splitting happening. Yes, I am aware under the contract Stop Loss may be put into effect...
    ...thus rendering your argument moot -- you volunteered for the military, knowing you could be kept over.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 03-24-09 at 04:58 PM.

  8. #78
    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 Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    How were Iraq and Afganistan a "Deception" are you one of those conspiracy types?

    Lol. Either believe the Bush Admin or you're a "conspiracy type?"

    Iraq never attacked us.

    Afghanistan never attacked us.


    As one who served, and one who was "Stop-lossed", I can tell you it was clearly part of the contract when I signed up. One signs up for 4 active, 4 IRR, stop loss is a call on the IRR.

    Already addressed that in the post above.



    When and where did you serve again?

    Do you plan on asking me out on a date? If not, no need to get personal.





    It is anti-american to attack the military and the troops with the spray paint you paid for with your parents credit cards.

    Could that be why I said I disagreed with what they had done? Why is it even when others agree it isn't good enough unless the same amount of Cujo juice gets sprayed?

    We both agree it wasn't a good thing to do. Why isn't that enough?

  9. #79
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,595
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Marine recruiting station under attack... again

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    It amazes me how hippy scum enjoy the freedoms of this nation but yet somehow seem to not appreciate the service of those in the military. Do these pieces of **** hippy scum not realize that without our military they would not be able to enjoy the freedoms they have, I am pretty sure that other countries are less tolerant of anti-military scum who vandalize recruiting stations.
    No wonder you are "Jamesrage"..
    I can see some of their argument, I think things in our nation are out of balance, that our military is too strong..
    The intellectual level of these vandal hippies is no higher than that of the uneducated rednecks that permeate our society...
    I'd like to see the hippies be made to pay for the damage, and then learn how to discuss and debate these things in a civilized manner..

  10. #80
    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 Zyphlin View Post
    I always love when libertarian types come out and say something along this line and then go on a "Bush Lied! We went to war for Oil! He's shat on the constitution! Out of Iraq IMMEDIETELY! Get out get out get out!"

    Yeah, don't do anything knee jerk, reactionary, emotionalized, and without thinking about the rpoblems.

    The vast majority of libertarian types I've spoken to about this NEVER seem to take into account the potential issues with an immediete quick withdraw from Iraq, let alone the "lets pull out of every base everywhere over the entire globe imemdietely" that became popular to peddle. Their reasons rarely are purely logic based, usually with screaming charges of "They're killing the constitution!" or "Illegal! Illegal! Our founders would roll in the graves".

    Bull**** about not doing things without thinking about the problems or with emotion invested in it. Its doing things they don't like that has emotions involved, or doing things they don't like without agreeing with what THEY think are problems.

    Its all rationalized bull**** that every side does but Libertarians always seem to act like they're ****ing titan upon mount olympus when it comes to things, untouchable by what the common little peons down below do.



    Lets play devil's advocate here. Most libertarians seem to be for all drugs being legalized, yes? Yet so often, the big movement isn't "Legalize All Drugs!"...its legalize marijuana. Why? Because they don't make an EMOTIONAL decision but one based on reason. The most likely and easiest drug to initially get legalize would likely be marijuana AND if you focused on ALL drugs you'd likely margianlize the support you'd get leaving you without legalized marijuana or anything else. As such, they focus on the most likely one at first, hoping that if you legalize that one it'll lay the groundwork and foundation to move to the ones that would be far more difficult in teh future.

    Likewise, while Saudi may be much larger bank roller of terror, or even Iran, through a rational accessment of the situation it could be said that the risk of going at them first outweighed the reward of your utlimate goal (in this case the assumed "war on terror"). Instead you look towards Iraq.

    You have violation of numerous U.N. treaties over the year.
    You do have proof of at least some interaction with terrorism whether that's harboring them knowingly (maybe not by Saddam but by the government as a general entity) or sponsoring terrorist acts abroad in say Israel.
    You do have numerous intelligence reports that you could use for justification of a potential thread.
    It provides the best tactical position for furthering the war on terror. (much like marijuana is the best tactical position for expanding the legalization)

    Now, does that mean its JUSTIFIED? Not necessarily. Are all those things rock solid? Absolutely not. BUT this idiotic slapstick EMOTIONAL response of "OMG Saudi!" as a way of attempting to blow the War in Iraq out of water is illogical and ignorant and in the case of libertarians simply and fully dishonest and hypocritical.

    They're not "libertarian types". I'm a libertarian. Those people are just some of Lenin's Useful Idiots, pre-programmed emotional robots following orders.

Page 8 of 24 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... 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
  •