• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Marine recruiting station under attack... again

Stryker

New member
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
39
Reaction score
19
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Cant believe this is still going on. Dont people have anything better to do?

Vandals Strike Berkeley Marine Recruiting Center . Category: News Updates from The Berkeley Daily Planet - Thursday March 19, 2009

The United States Marine Corps Officer Selection Office in downtown Berkeley came under attack once again Wednesday night when a group of vandals broke the building’s windows with sledgehammers and splashed them with red paint.

Officers at the recruiting center at 64 Shattuck Square were not able to say whether the incident was related to protests taking place throughout the rest of the country on the eve of the sixth anniversary of the Iraq war.

Berkeley Police Department spokesperson Officer Andrew Frankel said the police received a call at 8:54 p.m. Wednesday from an eyewitness who reported that three suspects were breaking the Marine Corps office’s plate-glass windows and splashing them with red paint.
 
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.
 
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.

It amazes me how people can enjoy the cheap materials they have, but want to kick the workers who work for cheap out of our country.
 
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.

Please prove that pre-2004 Iraq was a threat to American freedoms.
 
Please prove that pre-2004 Iraq was a threat to American freedoms.

Why does it matter, we are there now. We started that mess, now we have to clean it up.

Argue all you want before the war, and after the war is over. But when we are in a conflict shut up and support our solders.

Hell, i am no fan of the way the Iraq war sttarted or turned out. I am sure once we are out there will be many studies about how it was wrong and the many mistakes that were made.
 
Last edited:
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.

Yes, like china they just run over their dissidents with tanks.
 
Why does it matter, we are there now. We started that mess, now we have to clean it up.

Argue all you want before the war, and after the war is over. But when we are in a conflict shut up and support our solders.

I'm not in disagreement... I mainly broguht it up because all anti-war protestors were being labelled as hippies. That simply isn't the case. There are legitimate reasons to protest the war. I don't support vandalism or destruction of private property, however.
 
Please prove that pre-2004 Iraq was a threat to American freedoms.

Cohen of the Clinton Administration warned about Saddam.
The House and Senate made grand speeches about his threat in 1998.

16 UN Resolutions sends a message we are weak.
That posed dangers.

But let's focus ion Iraq.

David Kay, a weapons expert/scientist testifying under oath to the Senate Armed Service Committee.

CRG: Dr David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee
I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein. I have said I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought.

I think when we have the complete record you're going to discover that after 1998 it became a regime that was totally corrupt. Individuals were out for their own protection. And in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country than even we anticipated with what may turn out not to be a fully accurate estimate.

What I don't know over time, and I'm more and more struck with, is how corrupt and destructive that society had become. But you can't count on when it would fall apart. And it might fall apart in ways that are far more dangerous. So I think that is a safe assumption.
But do you consider that to have been a real risk in terms of Saddam's activities and these programs -- the risk of proliferation?

KAY: Actually, I consider it a bigger risk. And that's why I paused on the preceding questions. I consider that a bigger risk than the restart of his programs being successful.

KAY: I think the way the society was going, and the number of willing buyers in the market, that that probably was a risk that if we did avoid, we barely avoided.

KAY: Senator Levin, I don't think that is a fair -- my memory -- and I don't have the documents in front of me. I do not think that is a fair characterization of the intelligence reports and judgments prior to 2001.

And I refer you again -- if you go back to Secretary Cohen's testimony before this committee, Secretary Cohen, in the Clinton administration, was not referring to anthrax that might be produced in some reconstituted program. He was referring to actual weapons.

I think...

LEVIN: Which Iraq had at one point?

We've gone back to at least look at his part that we were able to get on Secretary Cohen, which was an interview on a TV station.

KAY: But there was also testimony.

LEVIN: Yes. And it seems from this, he's talking about what they had in the early '90s and what we caught him with and what that anthrax can do and what we destroyed. That's what he was talking about in that interview.

Are you saying he came before this committee -- I don't...

(CROSSTALK)

KAY: I'm going to go back and look. My memory is it was this committee; it may not have been this committee.

LEVIN: But you're saying that Secretary Cohen said: In our judgment, they've got anthrax. They are producing anthrax. And here, this bag of 5 pounds is what they can do.

That's what you're saying today?

KAY: My memory is that in holding that 5-pound bag and talking about how much destruction that could do, he made reference to Iraq having those capabilities...

Why does it matter, we are there now. We started that mess, now we have to clean it up.

Argue all you want before the war, and after the war is over. But when we are in a conflict shut up and support our solders.

Hell, i am no fan of the way the Iraq war sttarted or turned out. I am sure once we are out there will be many studies about how it was wrong and the many mistakes that were made.
Every war has mistakes.
This war is one where we had to fight cowards that dressed like civilians, used civilians as shields, used Mosques, schools and hospitals as points of attack.

I don't think it was wrong, considering the howling about "connect the dots" post 911, the ease of which anthrax is produced and can be distributed, and the fact Saddam had violated UN Res. 687 and 1441 with regularity.

He wanted to reconstitute his weapons program. Nobody doubts this. During the Clinton years the French were pushing hard to get the whole enchilada dropped. That would have been a massive error... Saddam seems to have been waiting the US out, and had the corrupt UN in his pocket... so he thought... Oil for Food billions.

Then there is the old line from the Left, "Bush 41 should have gone into Baghdad" at the end of Gulf War 1. But that wasn't in the official cards; his mandate was to get the Iraqi's out of Kuwait, nothing more.

Saddam lost that war and then did not live up to his agreement to disarm. Instead he shot at our planes in the NFZ on almost a daily basis.

WE stopped a Nuke black market (AQ Kahn) and got Libya's Nuke program.

All benefits of Iraq.

.
 
Last edited:
Please prove that pre-2004 Iraq was a threat to American freedoms.

Thank you. This business of talking like our freedoms would be nonexistent or are in jeopardy if it weren't for our troops fighting for us is just plain ridiculous.
 
Thank you. This business of talking like our freedoms would be nonexistent or are in jeopardy if it weren't for our troops fighting for us is just plain ridiculous.

Funny i thought that failing holding up UN mandates was an acceptable reason for invasion.

He did sign a peace treaty, and then broke it.
 
Funny i thought that failing holding up UN mandates was an acceptable reason for invasion.

He did sign a peace treaty, and then broke it.

What are you talking about?
 
We had the right to invade Iraq due to Saddam violating the ceasefire agreement after the first gulf war.
 
We had the right to invade Iraq due to Saddam violating the ceasefire agreement after the first gulf war.

Blah blah blah blah What this has to do with our freedoms is beyond me.
 
Funny i thought that failing holding up UN mandates was an acceptable reason for invasion.

If there were more invasions for breaking UN mandates then Iraq would never have happened - however that is an OT comment.
 
-- I am pretty sure that other countries are less tolerant of anti-military scum who vandalize recruiting stations.

Far as I am aware, this doesn't happen in many other countries - but that has nothing to do with Govt policy against people vandalising recruiting stations. We do and did have terrorists targetting recruiting stations in the past though.
 
Thank you. This business of talking like our freedoms would be nonexistent or are in jeopardy if it weren't for our troops fighting for us is just plain ridiculous.




If it was not for those worthless troops, we would still be a british colony, or two split countries, speaking german, etc....


I think you mis worded this aps.
 
Protesting is fine, but if you want people to take your protest seriously, act like an adult and not some angst riddled teen. Morons.
 
If it was not for those worthless troops, we would still be a british colony, or two split countries, speaking german, etc....


I think you mis worded this aps.

Past troops, yes. Current troops, no.

My point is that I don't think people who vandalize (which I find reprehensible) or protest the war are essentially saying, "F you" to our troops. I doubt this has anything to do with our troops and how these people feel about people who serve our country.
 
Ya, our current troops are doing nothing to protect out freedom.

Having a standing army is what keeps our freedom, even if a shot is never fired.
 
Past troops, yes. Current troops, no.


What you don't get, and think about this now. Present troops, are the barrier keeping your freedom. Whether you agree or not with the current wars, you must see that these same troops are your first line defense of your freedom.

I would also argue that Afghanistan is a war protecting your freedoms, directly. Read Osama's letter to America.

My point is that I don't think people who vandalize (which I find reprehensible) or protest the war are essentially saying, "F you" to our troops. I doubt this has anything to do with our troops and how these people feel about people who serve our country.


Sure they are. Don't you remember they called us murderers, rapists, and drug addicts. Remember billo? He had called me a murderer numerous times and I wasn't even in THIS Iraq war, (I was in the last one). Joe hill, and several others. Recently the tone has subsided around here on that. But still it was there. These dirtbags were attacking the military and the troops. There are better ways of protesting.
 
What you don't get, and think about this now. Present troops, are the barrier keeping your freedom. Whether you agree or not with the current wars, you must see that these same troops are your first line defense of your freedom.

I hadn't thought of it that way. You are right! :)shock: Did I really write that? ;))

I would also argue that Afghanistan is a war protecting your freedoms, directly. Read Osama's letter to America.

I hadn't thought about arguing this stance. I agree--one could argue that Afghanistan is a war protecting our freedoms, but my gut says my freedoms are not threatened by this war. This is, of course, my opinion.


Sure they are. Don't you remember they called us murderers, rapists, and drug addicts. Remember billo? He had called me a murderer numerous times and I wasn't even in THIS Iraq war, (I was in the last one). Joe hill, and several others. Recently the tone has subsided around here on that. But still it was there. These dirtbags were attacking the military and the troops. There are better ways of protesting.

You may be right. I am putting sanity into insanity, which may the problem we both having in arguing that there are better ways of protesting. These protesters are nutjobs/stupid.
 
I hadn't thought of it that way. You are right! :)shock: Did I really write that? ;))


Another delivered from the darkness into the light that is the Good Reverend! :mrgreen:

I hadn't thought about arguing this stance. I agree--one could argue that Afghanistan is a war protecting our freedoms, but my gut says my freedoms are not threatened by this war. This is, of course, my opinion.


I would argue that by attacking us and our away of life AQ was attempting to curtail some of your freedoms. See Osama's letter to America. the Taliban protected them. They chose poorly.


You may be right. I am putting sanity into insanity, which may the problem we both having in arguing that there are better ways of protesting. These protesters are nutjobs/stupid.



Indeed they are.
 
Thank you. This business of talking like our freedoms would be nonexistent or are in jeopardy if it weren't for our troops fighting for us is just plain ridiculous.

Troops, not journalists or protesters are responsible for protecting our Rights.

Their blood, their sacrifice, their honor.
Known and unknown heroes.
Heroes that some folks have no idea what they accomplished in secrecy.

Had somebody told you some Islamo-fascists masquerading as students would seek to fly planes into strategic targets and have a 75% success rate, you would have called me nuts.

These people laughed when they found out thousands died.
They HOPED for more.

It is the soldiers beating back and trying to marginalize these freaks that keeps us safe from attack. Military and intel working inside these countries is the new basis to get foot soldier intel. A valuable resource we lacked before getting hit. Thank The Church Hearings for setting that measure of NATIONAL SECURITY BLINDNESS. Gorelick wrote a harmful bit of law too, that cannot be forgotten.

That intel helped us make up three decades of idiocy... in a hurry.

So, we have the military fighting terrorists on their turf.
We've won that battle.
We have established valuable intel sources and resources in the ME that were non-existent beforehand.
We have two young democracies, former enemies, now allies.
We have not been hit since 911 at home.
As the saying goes, they only have to get lucky once.

The military my friend is always responsible for our freedoms.
Whether it is from "peace through strength", a deterrent, or by vanquishing our enemies... it doesn't matter. It is always the military.

God Bless them too.
Unselfish love of country, doing a job most would never be able to hack.
They are the very best of America.

Your party's treatment and ridicule of them is nothing short of unPatriotic.
You folks actually aided and abetted the enemy, while the troops were on the battle field protecting your right to be ridiculous.

.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom