GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-23-2013, 17:10   #51
Mad Ryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sunny Southern Oregon
Posts: 1,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer151515 View Post
My comments in red





On steroids
Bush had absolutely no reason to start a war in Iraq. None. He also pushed Medicare Part D and a set of tax cuts for people who didn't need them.

Any way you slice it Bush cooked the books to get us into Iraq. The people who provided the intel which was in some cases wrong and in some cases absolutely fabricated to congress were Bush appointees.

The two wars, one he arguably didn't start and one he definitely did, as well as the legislation he signed added trillions to the debt and will continue to ad more long after even Obama is gone.

But then all we care about is partisan BS right?
__________________
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't...
Mad Ryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2013, 18:15   #52
fortyofforty
Capt. Hindsight
 
fortyofforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Ryan View Post
The two wars, one he arguably didn't start and one he definitely did, as well as the legislation he signed added trillions to the debt and will continue to ad more long after even Obama is gone.

But then all we care about is partisan BS right?
"Arguably didn't start"? Seriously? I wonder how old you were in 2001, if you even remember the attacks.

As for Iraq, multiple intelligence agencies from different countries, not just ours, came to the same conclusion. Iraq had WMDs. Saddam was violating the cease fire agreement, regularly and repeatedly. He was not allowing free and unfettered access by weapons inspection teams in Iraq. He allowed the attempted murder of American pilots, with missile launches on our aircraft enforcing the United Nations-mandated No Fly Zones. Saddam attempted to murder former President George H.W. Bush. And thousands of Iraqi children were dying due to the U.N. sanctions, which many countries favored ending. Saddam was using these deaths for leverage to force the sanctions to be lifted, which was close to happening.

Saddam declared war on the United States, by his actions. We took him up on it. He miscalculated because it was not a weak Democrat in the White House. He lost, and he paid with his life.

If you miss the rape rooms (I'm sure Bill Clinton can relate), the torture, the gassing of entire villages, the murder of innocent people carried out by Saddam and his evil regime, Uday and Qusay and their murderous activities, that says much about you and your selective morality.
__________________
Odumbo: Unpatriotic, Narcissistic Man-Child. Democrat is the Party of Rape, Special Interests, Greed, Slavery, Sloth, Ignorance, Bigotry and Segregation. Click here to save animals! Gun Rights are Civil Rights.
fortyofforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2013, 18:41   #53
fortyofforty
Capt. Hindsight
 
fortyofforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,111
He was an evil dictator, but he only really posed a direct threat to nations nearby. He had an active weapons development program, and had weapons of mass destruction. We know it for sure because his country used them already, so he had access to them or the capability to make them again. Certainly, we know he used poison gas on his own people, and committed genocide. He did not have the missiles with the reach to directly attack the United States, but was working on them, and he did not yet possess nuclear weapons. Many people were sent to prison camps, tortured, or summarily executed. He launched unprovoked attacks on his neighbors, and sought domination of the whole region. But truly he posed no threat to the United States so we should never have attacked his country.

Oh, wait, that’s Hitler. Feel that way about the Second World War, too, or are you logically inconsistent in your viewpoints?
__________________
Odumbo: Unpatriotic, Narcissistic Man-Child. Democrat is the Party of Rape, Special Interests, Greed, Slavery, Sloth, Ignorance, Bigotry and Segregation. Click here to save animals! Gun Rights are Civil Rights.
fortyofforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 06:38   #54
engineer151515
_______________
 
engineer151515's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 20,091


My comments in RED

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Ryan View Post
Bush had absolutely no reason to start a war in Iraq. None.

Partisan comment


He also pushed Medicare Part D

No, Ted Kennedy (D) push it early in Bush's first term. Bush was trying to show bi-partianship effort. You know, the very compromise that is claimed to be lacking today. I remember it very well, commenting what a mistake he was making trying to work with the Democrats on a Democrat initiative in the interests of striking a tone for his first administration

and a set of tax cuts for people who didn't need them.

Partisan comment. People can always pay as much in taxes as they want. There is no government imposed upper limit. Just write them a check.

Any way you slice it Bush cooked the books to get us into Iraq. The people who provided the intel which was in some cases wrong and in some cases absolutely fabricated to congress were Bush appointees.

Partisan comment


The two wars, one he arguably didn't start and one he definitely did, as well as the legislation he signed added trillions to the debt and will continue to ad more long after even Obama is gone.

So, Obama was wrong. Elections don't have consequences after all. Obama didn't renew the Bush era tax cuts. And Obama's signature on the last 5 budgets meant nothing. Oh, wait . . . there hasn't been 5 previous budgets approved by Congress! Obama's budgets didn't even get Democrat support. Hmmm.


But then all we care about is partisan BS right?
Apparently, we are partisan. Except I bring the data. You, of course, are entitled to your opinion regardless of what the data presents.
__________________
A picture is worth a thousand words but you can't see what those shades of gray keep covered. You should have seen it in color. - Jamey Johnson - In Color

Last edited by engineer151515; 10-24-2013 at 10:08..
engineer151515 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 11:46   #55
Mad Ryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sunny Southern Oregon
Posts: 1,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by fortyofforty View Post
"Arguably didn't start"? Seriously? I wonder how old you were in 2001, if you even remember the attacks.

As for Iraq, multiple intelligence agencies from different countries, not just ours, came to the same conclusion. Iraq had WMDs. Saddam was violating the cease fire agreement, regularly and repeatedly. He was not allowing free and unfettered access by weapons inspection teams in Iraq. He allowed the attempted murder of American pilots, with missile launches on our aircraft enforcing the United Nations-mandated No Fly Zones. Saddam attempted to murder former President George H.W. Bush. And thousands of Iraqi children were dying due to the U.N. sanctions, which many countries favored ending. Saddam was using these deaths for leverage to force the sanctions to be lifted, which was close to happening.

Saddam declared war on the United States, by his actions. We took him up on it. He miscalculated because it was not a weak Democrat in the White House. He lost, and he paid with his life.

If you miss the rape rooms (I'm sure Bill Clinton can relate), the torture, the gassing of entire villages, the murder of innocent people carried out by Saddam and his evil regime, Uday and Qusay and their murderous activities, that says much about you and your selective morality.
I had just EAS'd from the Marine Corps. I remember the attacks quite well. I was on my way to work that morning when the first plane hit. When we got there they told us to just go home. Closed for the day.

So I headed over to my folks house instead cause I don't have cable (never have) and my mom and I watched the towers fall.

You can try and justify the war in Iraq all you want. The fact remains that it was completely inappropriate and honestly, arguably illegal seeing as the premise we used to go to war was fabricated.

Horrible things go on all over the world. I saw lots of them while I was on active duty. We don't get to arbitrarily decide to just invade sovereign nations and "correct" them as we see fit.

Then there's the regional politics part. Saddam was a bad guy. Nobody disagrees with that, but Iran is a much bigger threat, and Saddam being in power kept Iran from being able to pursue their goals with impunity. We did them a huge favor by going in, removing Saddam, and tearing up the whole country while removing the Sunni minority from power. Gave them a ready-made puppet state on their border to take over subversively.

But don't let reality get in the way of your flag waving and bulls**t. One of my best friends was one of the first guys killed on the ground in Iraq. I'm sure his family are super glad we went in to "liberate" all those Iraqis. I'm sure the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis are glad too.
__________________
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't...
Mad Ryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 12:00   #56
fortyofforty
Capt. Hindsight
 
fortyofforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Ryan View Post
I had just EAS'd from the Marine Corps. I remember the attacks quite well. I was on my way to work that morning when the first plane hit. When we got there they told us to just go home. Closed for the day.

So I headed over to my folks house instead cause I don't have cable (never have) and my mom and I watched the towers fall.
Glad you still remember. Sometimes it seems you don't, such as when you say "arguably".

Quote:
You can try and justify the war in Iraq all you want. The fact remains that it was completely inappropriate and honestly, arguably illegal seeing as the premise we used to go to war was fabricated.
You seem to think we only can have one reason to go to war. The situation was much more complicated than that. However, the final straw was certainly the fear that Saddam would either use or hand to terrorist groups those weapons of mass destruction that he most certainly had, shortly before the invasion.

Quote:
Horrible things go on all over the world. I saw lots of them while I was on active duty. We don't get to arbitrarily decide to just invade sovereign nations and "correct" them as we see fit.
Actually, yes we do. Because we cannot act everywhere does not mean we can act nowhere. It is a common argument used by leftists who seem to forget morality when it suits them, and pull it out of their backsides when it helps their case.

Quote:
Then there's the regional politics part. Saddam was a bad guy. Nobody disagrees with that, but Iran is a much bigger threat, and Saddam being in power kept Iran from being able to pursue their goals with impunity. We did them a huge favor by going in, removing Saddam, and tearing up the whole country while removing the Sunni minority from power. Gave them a ready-made puppet state on their border to take over subversively.
We did a big favor to the thousands of Kuwaitis, Saudis, Israelis, Jordanians and Kurds living under the constant threat of Iraqi attack, too. Again, because we can't act everywhere does not mean we cannot act anywhere. It's a simple concept.

Quote:
But don't let reality get in the way of your flag waving and bulls**t. One of my best friends was one of the first guys killed on the ground in Iraq. I'm sure his family are super glad we went in to "liberate" all those Iraqis. I'm sure the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis are glad too.
If one of your best friends was one of the first guys killed on the ground on Iwo Jima, his parents would be equally justified in wondering why we had to invade a tiny island in the middle of the Pacific. The purpose of the invasion was noble. Sometimes all we can do is liberate a country and help the people have the chance at a better life. We can help and guide, but we don't take over and run things ourselves forever. It's not what we do. If they make poor choices, or if we fail to follow through (as is happening now under your beloved leader), bad things can happen.

We needed no "excuse" to go to war. Saddam was living under the United Nations ceasefire agreement he agreed to. Saddam violated that agreement. That, all by itself, is enough to restart hostilities. Saddam tried to kill our pilots. As far as I'm concerned, at the first SAM launch the air assault would have begun.

Finally, forgive me for not believing you about your military service or your "friend" who was killed. On the internet, it's quite easy to invent yourself and your autobiography to bolster your arguments. They must, of necessity, stand on their own, and be logically consistent. Yours are not. Good try, though.
__________________
Odumbo: Unpatriotic, Narcissistic Man-Child. Democrat is the Party of Rape, Special Interests, Greed, Slavery, Sloth, Ignorance, Bigotry and Segregation. Click here to save animals! Gun Rights are Civil Rights.

Last edited by fortyofforty; 10-24-2013 at 12:00..
fortyofforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 12:07   #57
Mad Ryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sunny Southern Oregon
Posts: 1,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by fortyofforty View Post
Glad you still remember. Sometimes it seems you don't, such as when you say "arguably".



You seem to think we only can have one reason to go to war. The situation was much more complicated than that. However, the final straw was certainly the fear that Saddam would either use or hand to terrorist groups those weapons of mass destruction that he most certainly had, shortly before the invasion.



Actually, yes we do. Because we cannot act everywhere does not mean we can act nowhere. It is a common argument used by leftists who seem to forget morality when it suits them, and pull it out of their backsides when it helps their case.



We did a big favor to the thousands of Kuwaitis, Saudis, Israelis, Jordanians and Kurds living under the constant threat of Iraqi attack, too. Again, because we can't act everywhere does not mean we cannot act anywhere. It's a simple concept.



If one of your best friends was one of the first guys killed on the ground on Iwo Jima, his parents would be equally justified in wondering why we had to invade a tiny island in the middle of the Pacific. The purpose of the invasion was noble. Sometimes all we can do is liberate a country and help the people have the chance at a better life. We can help and guide, but we don't take over and run things ourselves forever. It's not what we do. If they make poor choices, or if we fail to follow through (as is happening now under your beloved leader), bad things can happen.

We needed no "excuse" to go to war. Saddam was living under the United Nations ceasefire agreement he agreed to. Saddam violated that agreement. That, all by itself, is enough to restart hostilities. Saddam tried to kill our pilots. As far as I'm concerned, at the first SAM launch the air assault would have begun.

Finally, forgive me for not believing you about your military service or your "friend" who was killed. On the internet, it's quite easy to invent yourself and your autobiography to bolster your arguments. They must, of necessity, stand on their own, and be logically consistent. Yours are not. Good try, though.
lol... You'll excuse me if I redacted a bit of the personal information out.

Political Issues

I can see we don't agree on the role the US should play in the world. I don't think we should exercise military power like a sledge hammer unless we legitimately need to. Then it should be absolutely overwhelming and we should accomplish our objective and leave.

Afghanistan should have been done differently. We should have rolled through there like a biblical plague. Killed everyone involved with Al Qaeda and then left.

We shouldn't have had anything at all to do with Iraq.

Trillions of dollars pissed away, thousands of American lives for nothing. The country is in much worse shape now in many cases than it was. But I can see you feel the need to justify the actions of "your guy" rather than thoughtfully questioning things which is IMO the patriotic path.
__________________
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't...
Mad Ryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 12:25   #58
fortyofforty
Capt. Hindsight
 
fortyofforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Ryan View Post
I can see we don't agree on the role the US should play in the world. I don't think we should exercise military power like a sledge hammer unless we legitimately need to. Then it should be absolutely overwhelming and we should accomplish our objective and leave.

Afghanistan should have been done differently. We should have rolled through there like a biblical plague. Killed everyone involved with Al Qaeda and then left.

We shouldn't have had anything at all to do with Iraq.

Trillions of dollars pissed away, thousands of American lives for nothing. The country is in much worse shape now in many cases than it was. But I can see you feel the need to justify the actions of "your guy" rather than thoughtfully questioning things which is IMO the patriotic path.
Again, it doesn't matter to me whether you served or not. Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marine, and I'd hardly point to him or his Socialist opinions as a model. Not everyone who served is or was a true patriot, and some have little understanding of foreign policy or the complexities therein.

I await your explanation of why attacking Nazi Germany was different from attacking Iraq, if you think it was. I am interested to hear your viewpoint.
__________________
Odumbo: Unpatriotic, Narcissistic Man-Child. Democrat is the Party of Rape, Special Interests, Greed, Slavery, Sloth, Ignorance, Bigotry and Segregation. Click here to save animals! Gun Rights are Civil Rights.
fortyofforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 12:27   #59
Mad Ryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sunny Southern Oregon
Posts: 1,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by fortyofforty View Post
Again, it doesn't matter to me whether you served or not. Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marine, and I'd hardly point to him or his Socialist opinions as a model. Not everyone who served is or was a true patriot, and some have little understanding of foreign policy or the complexities therein.

I await your explanation of why attacking Nazi Germany was different from attacking Iraq, if you think it was. I am interested to hear your viewpoint.
Attacking Nazi Germany was obviously quite different.

So let me get this straight. Your litmus test for being a "Patriot" is whether someone agrees with you?

Did you serve? Have you ever put on a uniform in service to our country?

Blindly following your leader isn't Patriotism. It's collusion.
__________________
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't...
Mad Ryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 13:15   #60
fortyofforty
Capt. Hindsight
 
fortyofforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Ryan View Post
Attacking Nazi Germany was obviously quite different.

So let me get this straight. Your litmus test for being a "Patriot" is whether someone agrees with you?

Did you serve? Have you ever put on a uniform in service to our country?

Blindly following your leader isn't Patriotism. It's collusion.
You are the first one who used the term "patriot". I don't have a litmus test for being a patriot. I believe I've been in more dangerous situations in the service of my country than you have, so I have nothing to fear from that comparison.

And, again, why was attacking Nazi Germany "obviously quite different"? Why, specifically?
__________________
Odumbo: Unpatriotic, Narcissistic Man-Child. Democrat is the Party of Rape, Special Interests, Greed, Slavery, Sloth, Ignorance, Bigotry and Segregation. Click here to save animals! Gun Rights are Civil Rights.
fortyofforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 13:30   #61
Mad Ryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sunny Southern Oregon
Posts: 1,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by fortyofforty View Post
You are the first one who used the term "patriot". I don't have a litmus test for being a patriot. I believe I've been in more dangerous situations in the service of my country than you have, so I have nothing to fear from that comparison.

And, again, why was attacking Nazi Germany "obviously quite different"? Why, specifically?
Witness the bold section...


Quote:
Originally Posted by fortyofforty View Post
Again, it doesn't matter to me whether you served or not. Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marine, and I'd hardly point to him or his Socialist opinions as a model. Not everyone who served is or was a true patriot, and some have little understanding of foreign policy or the complexities therein.

I await your explanation of why attacking Nazi Germany was different from attacking Iraq, if you think it was. I am interested to hear your viewpoint.
I tend to think anyone who signs up to serve their country of their own free will is worthy of respect as such. Similarly, holding opposing views is not an "infraction" worthy of disrespect. Our nation was founded on the ideals of everyone having a place, not just the people who believed a certain way. I'm sorry if you believe that one must fit an ideological mold to be a true American or some such nonsense. That's exactly the sort of thing we were fighting in Nazi Germany.

Obviously, Germany was significantly different because of a whole host of reasons.

1) we were actually attacked by their ally in an effort to keep us out of the war.

2) our allies were being invaded and attacked by Nazi Germany.

3) Nazi Germany was engaging in the wholesale, systematic genocide of its Jewish, Homosexual, and other minority populations.

Obviously, there are many, many more reasons we got involved.

The take home point is, 911 wasn't anything like Pearl Harbor. It wasn't even in the same moral equivalency universe as WWII. It was a terrorist attack. It was a horrible, unconscionable event, but it was not an act of war by a nation state.
__________________
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't...
Mad Ryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 14:05   #62
fortyofforty
Capt. Hindsight
 
fortyofforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Ryan View Post
Trillions of dollars pissed away, thousands of American lives for nothing. The country is in much worse shape now in many cases than it was. But I can see you feel the need to justify the actions of "your guy" rather than thoughtfully questioning things which is IMO the patriotic path.
Witness the bold selection. From a previous post. By you. Before I used the word "patriot" in my later post. You whipped out the "patriot card" and now you're backpeddling.
__________________
Odumbo: Unpatriotic, Narcissistic Man-Child. Democrat is the Party of Rape, Special Interests, Greed, Slavery, Sloth, Ignorance, Bigotry and Segregation. Click here to save animals! Gun Rights are Civil Rights.

Last edited by fortyofforty; 10-24-2013 at 20:11..
fortyofforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 14:21   #63
fortyofforty
Capt. Hindsight
 
fortyofforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Ryan View Post
I tend to think anyone who signs up to serve their country of their own free will is worthy of respect as such. Similarly, holding opposing views is not an "infraction" worthy of disrespect. Our nation was founded on the ideals of everyone having a place, not just the people who believed a certain way. I'm sorry if you believe that one must fit an ideological mold to be a true American or some such nonsense. That's exactly the sort of thing we were fighting in Nazi Germany.
Exactly, so I don't see why your guy feels it's right to demonize those with opposing viewpoints and call them terrorists, extremists, hostage takers, suicide bombers, and all the other names. I also don't see how you can be a big supporter, but it's your right to be so. This is America, not Iraq under Saddam.

Quote:
Obviously, Germany was significantly different because of a whole host of reasons.

1) we were actually attacked by their ally in an effort to keep us out of the war.
Keep us out of the war? We were attacked by Japan, not Germany, and Japan had its own reasons for attacking us, not to somehow help Germany. I suggest you pick up a history book if you think Japan attacked the United States to help Germany. You might check into the U.S.S. Stark attack and the hundreds of illegal, unprovoked attacks on American aircraft in the No Fly Zone, as well.

Quote:
2) our allies were being invaded and attacked by Nazi Germany.
Like Kuwait, Israel, and Saudi Arabia? Which U.S. ally was invaded by Germany before we got involved?

Quote:
3) Nazi Germany was engaging in the wholesale, systematic genocide of its Jewish, Homosexual, and other minority populations.
You think Saddam wasn't engaging in genocide? You think homosexuals were well-treated in Iraq before we invaded? Do you remember the Kurds? Do you remember the attack on Halabja?

So, now you will decide, based on degrees, when it's OK to violate another country's rights and attack, even when our country is not directly threatened. I suppose when you get elected President you can make those decisions. Our President at the time did exactly that, with the support of Congress.

Quote:
Obviously, there are many, many more reasons we got involved.

The take home point is, 911 wasn't anything like Pearl Harbor. It wasn't even in the same moral equivalency universe as WWII. It was a terrorist attack. It was a horrible, unconscionable event, but it was not an act of war by a nation state.
It was indeed an act of war, by a militant Islamic ideology against a Western, Judeo-Christian society. It is one more act of aggression in a 1200-year war. The planners were harbored by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Bush gave the leaders a chance to turn over the September 11 plotters. They refused.

Similarly, Bush gave Saddam a chance to leave, along with his sons, and we would not have attacked Iraq. They refused. Bad miscalculation by Saddam. He ended up at the end of a rope because of it.
__________________
Odumbo: Unpatriotic, Narcissistic Man-Child. Democrat is the Party of Rape, Special Interests, Greed, Slavery, Sloth, Ignorance, Bigotry and Segregation. Click here to save animals! Gun Rights are Civil Rights.
fortyofforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 21:04   #64
Mad Ryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sunny Southern Oregon
Posts: 1,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by fortyofforty View Post
Exactly, so I don't see why your guy feels it's right to demonize those with opposing viewpoints and call them terrorists, extremists, hostage takers, suicide bombers, and all the other names. I also don't see how you can be a big supporter, but it's your right to be so. This is America, not Iraq under Saddam.



Keep us out of the war? We were attacked by Japan, not Germany, and Japan had its own reasons for attacking us, not to somehow help Germany. I suggest you pick up a history book if you think Japan attacked the United States to help Germany. You might check into the U.S.S. Stark attack and the hundreds of illegal, unprovoked attacks on American aircraft in the No Fly Zone, as well.



Like Kuwait, Israel, and Saudi Arabia? Which U.S. ally was invaded by Germany before we got involved?



You think Saddam wasn't engaging in genocide? You think homosexuals were well-treated in Iraq before we invaded? Do you remember the Kurds? Do you remember the attack on Halabja?

So, now you will decide, based on degrees, when it's OK to violate another country's rights and attack, even when our country is not directly threatened. I suppose when you get elected President you can make those decisions. Our President at the time did exactly that, with the support of Congress.



It was indeed an act of war, by a militant Islamic ideology against a Western, Judeo-Christian society. It is one more act of aggression in a 1200-year war. The planners were harbored by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Bush gave the leaders a chance to turn over the September 11 plotters. They refused.

Similarly, Bush gave Saddam a chance to leave, along with his sons, and we would not have attacked Iraq. They refused. Bad miscalculation by Saddam. He ended up at the end of a rope because of it.
Man... I love it.

First off, Obama isn't "My Guy" as in I really don't like his arrogant ass.

You can't seriously be trying to leverage moral equivalency between our war in Iraq and what happened in WWII. Nobody is that f-ed in the head.

A buddy of mine from the Army was there when they found ole Saddam's stash of mothballed gas shells. The "Smoking gun" Faux news was all stoked about. He was like WTF lol.

The problem with going to war over WMD's when you're talking Serin or some other chemical agent is that you can make the stuff in a halfway decent Community College chem lab. It's not like anyone with a brain was worried about Saddam handing it off to terrorists because terrorists can mix it up for themselves. It's not rocket science. If you can cook meth you can probably make a half decent nerve agent.

Only thing is, without a really sophisticated delivery system, you're better off using your lab to cook meth. You'll wreck more peoples lives with Meth. Chemical weapons simply aren't that effective for mass casualties.

But wait... The "Yellow Cake" thing and the Iraqi intel guy who supposedly met with one of the 911 hijackers. Right. Completely fabricated.

So again, we went to war over smoke, mirrors, and BS. Bush managed to beat Osama's American body count by 2000, and idiots cheered him on.

Beautiful.

How about we pull most of our military home. Protect our country. Save a little money on Defense spending, and if/when we're attacked by a nation state we wage war on a scale that's so frightening that the world is like "damn" and then we leave. We don't rebuild. We don't do humanitarian service crap. We don't try and win the hearts and minds. We just do the job and leave. Basically what we should have done in Afghanistan.
__________________
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't...
Mad Ryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 22:02   #65
fortyofforty
Capt. Hindsight
 
fortyofforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Ryan View Post
Man... I love it.

First off, Obama isn't "My Guy" as in I really don't like his arrogant ass.
And yet, without any evidence, you describe George W. Bush as my "guy". Seriously? Are you that juvenile that you don't even recognize when I am being sarcastic and using your own insults against you. Go back and read your own verbal farting. It's quite amusing to anyone with a brain.

Quote:
You can't seriously be trying to leverage moral equivalency between our war in Iraq and what happened in WWII. Nobody is that f-ed in the head.
The difference between Hitler and Saddam was a matter of degree, due to the nature of the German military and society, mostly. It certainly wasn't one of desire, since Saddam's desire for global domination were equally bad as Hitler's. The point is they were both evil dictators and both needed to go. Saddam started the war with us and we finished it. Hitler didn't fire the first shot on us, unless your secret military contacts have information that wasn't released to the public.

Quote:
A buddy of mine from the Army was there when they found ole Saddam's stash of mothballed gas shells. The "Smoking gun" Faux news was all stoked about. He was like WTF lol.
Saddam had plenty of WMDs. Saddam didn't destroy them publicly. Saddam didn't keep them. Where are they? Where did they go?

Quote:
The problem with going to war over WMD's when you're talking Serin or some other chemical agent is that you can make the stuff in a halfway decent Community College chem lab. It's not like anyone with a brain was worried about Saddam handing it off to terrorists because terrorists can mix it up for themselves. It's not rocket science. If you can cook meth you can probably make a half decent nerve agent.
First of all it's Sarin, not Serin. And do you seriously think it's that easy to make WMDs? Why hasn't al Qaeda made them and used them against us, if it's so easy? Do you think they don't want to hurt us too bad? Are you that stupid? If it was truly easy, they would be made all over the place and used all the time by terrorists. They aren't. The evidence speaks clearly against you.

Quote:
Only thing is, without a really sophisticated delivery system, you're better off using your lab to cook meth. You'll wreck more peoples lives with Meth. Chemical weapons simply aren't that effective for mass casualties.
Do you think al Qaeda is going to sell meth, or would they rather kill fifty thousand people in a major city with a WMD? I can almost not believe you are that dense. You must be kidding. You can't be that stupid. Nobody who can read could believe the stuff you write. It's a put on, right?

Quote:
But wait... The "Yellow Cake" thing and the Iraqi intel guy who supposedly met with one of the 911 hijackers. Right. Completely fabricated.
Blame the British and Czech intelligence services, then. They came up with that information.

Quote:
So again, we went to war over smoke, mirrors, and BS. Bush managed to beat Osama's American body count by 2000, and idiots cheered him on.
And to rid the world of an evil, murderous regime.

Quote:
Beautiful.
Yep, Saddam's demise was indeed beautiful for the world. Unless you are fan of rape, like Clinton. Perhaps you are. I don't know.

Quote:
How about we pull most of our military home. Protect our country. Save a little money on Defense spending, and if/when we're attacked by a nation state we wage war on a scale that's so frightening that the world is like "damn" and then we leave. We don't rebuild. We don't do humanitarian service crap. We don't try and win the hearts and minds. We just do the job and leave. Basically what we should have done in Afghanistan.
That is what is happening now. And Iraq is falling apart. Great strategy. We are still in Europe after more than sixty years, to provide stability there. We cut and ran in Iraq and the country is falling apart. Nice way to pull defeat from the jaws of victory. You and your Messiah must be proud.
__________________
Odumbo: Unpatriotic, Narcissistic Man-Child. Democrat is the Party of Rape, Special Interests, Greed, Slavery, Sloth, Ignorance, Bigotry and Segregation. Click here to save animals! Gun Rights are Civil Rights.
fortyofforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 22:36   #66
Mad Ryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sunny Southern Oregon
Posts: 1,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by fortyofforty View Post
And yet, without any evidence, you describe George W. Bush as my "guy". Seriously? Are you that juvenile that you don't even recognize when I am being sarcastic and using your own insults against you. Go back and read your own verbal farting. It's quite amusing to anyone with a brain.



The difference between Hitler and Saddam was a matter of degree, due to the nature of the German military and society, mostly. It certainly wasn't one of desire, since Saddam's desire for global domination were equally bad as Hitler's. The point is they were both evil dictators and both needed to go. Saddam started the war with us and we finished it. Hitler didn't fire the first shot on us, unless your secret military contacts have information that wasn't released to the public.



Saddam had plenty of WMDs. Saddam didn't destroy them publicly. Saddam didn't keep them. Where are they? Where did they go?



First of all it's Sarin, not Serin. And do you seriously think it's that easy to make WMDs? Why hasn't al Qaeda made them and used them against us, if it's so easy? Do you think they don't want to hurt us too bad? Are you that stupid? If it was truly easy, they would be made all over the place and used all the time by terrorists. They aren't. The evidence speaks clearly against you.



Do you think al Qaeda is going to sell meth, or would they rather kill fifty thousand people in a major city with a WMD? I can almost not believe you are that dense. You must be kidding. You can't be that stupid. Nobody who can read could believe the stuff you write. It's a put on, right?



Blame the British and Czech intelligence services, then. They came up with that information.



And to rid the world of an evil, murderous regime.



Yep, Saddam's demise was indeed beautiful for the world. Unless you are fan of rape, like Clinton. Perhaps you are. I don't know.



That is what is happening now. And Iraq is falling apart. Great strategy. We are still in Europe after more than sixty years, to provide stability there. We cut and ran in Iraq and the country is falling apart. Nice way to pull defeat from the jaws of victory. You and your Messiah must be proud.
You left out the part where we wrecked the country, killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and all that.

Oh, and yes, I've got a bio-chem background. Nerve agents aren't rocket science. It's 60 year old technology which can be found on the internet if you don't mind ending up on every watch list there is.

But as I said, and I know this from my time getting all that wonderful specialized NBC training, that delivery is key. Chemical agents are really hard to deliver properly. It's not like watching a movie with Nick Cage or some such.

But if you think the war in Iraq made us more safe you're welcome to that assumption, but I seriously doubt it, and most people who study such things, including several friends of mine who are still active duty, including a very good friend who's serving a hitch as a spook in the AF agree that it didn't.

The fact that you continue to play the moral equivalency card over and over cracks me up.

Honestly, you have your version of history and everyone else has their own. I'm not going to debate it anymore. I frankly don't care enough to waste the time.

(BTW, I mis-spelled the name of a certain organic chemical compound on purpose. Not really a fan of having my ISP targeted for scrutiny. Probably doesn't help anyway.)
__________________
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't...
Mad Ryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 22:50   #67
fortyofforty
Capt. Hindsight
 
fortyofforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Ryan View Post
You left out the part where we wrecked the country, killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and all that.

Oh, and yes, I've got a bio-chem background. Nerve agents aren't rocket science. It's 60 year old technology which can be found on the internet if you don't mind ending up on every watch list there is.

But as I said, and I know this from my time getting all that wonderful specialized NBC training, that delivery is key. Chemical agents are really hard to deliver properly. It's not like watching a movie with Nick Cage or some such.

But if you think the war in Iraq made us more safe you're welcome to that assumption, but I seriously doubt it, and most people who study such things, including several friends of mine who are still active duty, including a very good friend who's serving a hitch as a spook in the AF agree that it didn't.

The fact that you continue to play the moral equivalency card over and over cracks me up.

Honestly, you have your version of history and everyone else has their own. I'm not going to debate it anymore. I frankly don't care enough to waste the time.

(BTW, I mis-spelled the name of a certain organic chemical compound on purpose. Not really a fan of having my ISP targeted for scrutiny. Probably doesn't help anyway.)
Yeah, right. Every mistake I make is on purpose too. I wish you could actually realize how you sound.

You can believe the world would be a better place with Saddam and Uday and Qusay running Iraq, murdering people, launching rockets into Israel and Saudi Arabia, invading Kuwait and Iran. That's your right. Plenty of people died to give you the freedoms you don't care to give to Iraqis. Again, your right. Ignorance is curable, but it requires will. Natsos aren't famous for curing their ignorance, since voting for Natsos is easier and never requires much thought or justification. Carry on. I'm done with you. You never refuted my points, or my historical facts. You just resort to name calling. The end.
__________________
Odumbo: Unpatriotic, Narcissistic Man-Child. Democrat is the Party of Rape, Special Interests, Greed, Slavery, Sloth, Ignorance, Bigotry and Segregation. Click here to save animals! Gun Rights are Civil Rights.
fortyofforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2013, 09:48   #68
Mad Ryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sunny Southern Oregon
Posts: 1,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by fortyofforty View Post
Yeah, right. Every mistake I make is on purpose too. I wish you could actually realize how you sound.

You can believe the world would be a better place with Saddam and Uday and Qusay running Iraq, murdering people, launching rockets into Israel and Saudi Arabia, invading Kuwait and Iran. That's your right. Plenty of people died to give you the freedoms you don't care to give to Iraqis. Again, your right. Ignorance is curable, but it requires will. Natsos aren't famous for curing their ignorance, since voting for Natsos is easier and never requires much thought or justification. Carry on. I'm done with you. You never refuted my points, or my historical facts. You just resort to name calling. The end.
None of that was going on with him contained. We had effectively destroyed his ability to make war. He had nothing left. It took Clinton longer to take down the Branch Davidians than it took to take down Iraq.

You're totally dicking up the time line. You're taking almost two decades of history and sandwiching it together as if it was still going on.

Nobody disputes that Saddam was a bad guy but interestingly enough, if you understand the dynamic in the Middle East, he was necessary. He kept Iran off balance, which is much more of a threat to the region than Iraq ever was.

That's the absolutely hilarious thing to me. From a tactical and strategic standpoint Iraq was just about the dumbest thing GW could have done. The only thing that could have destabilized the region more would have been to invade Turkey.

But I'm honest enough to admit that and smart enough to see it while you're too invested in your point of view or ideological position to give up trying to play a 10 year old game of CYA.

As I mentioned prior, now Iran has a ready made puppet state full of Shia to take over which will give them not only access to the most people in the region, but tons of oil.

Bravo

Hey dude, maybe ending up on watch lists isn't important to you but with my education background it's a big deal to me. I wasn't kidding when I said the science behind these horrific weapons is really fairly simple and anyone can do it with a good lab. Even the high energy physics behind a single stage atomic device is pretty basic by modern standards. My best friend is a Nuclear engineer and could probably design one on a napkin.

The good thing about that is you can't ever hide where the fissile material came from.
__________________
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't...
Mad Ryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2013, 11:39   #69
fortyofforty
Capt. Hindsight
 
fortyofforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,111
You're back!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Ryan View Post
None of that was going on with him contained. We had effectively destroyed his ability to make war. He had nothing left. It took Clinton longer to take down the Branch Davidians than it took to take down Iraq.
He had enough left to threaten his neighbors. You can't have it both ways. Either Saddam had enough left to keep Iran in check or he had nothing left. Which is it? Your own statements are contradictory.

Quote:
You're totally dicking up the time line. You're taking almost two decades of history and sandwiching it together as if it was still going on.
You have no concept of history. Saddam was an evil guy. He killed more Americans before we invaded than Hitler had killed before we invaded Germany. But, no matter how many instances of similarity between the two dictators I lay out, your only retort is ad hominem attacks on me. Very mature. Very constructive.

Quote:
Nobody disputes that Saddam was a bad guy but interestingly enough, if you understand the dynamic in the Middle East, he was necessary. He kept Iran off balance, which is much more of a threat to the region than Iraq ever was.
That is precisely why a free, democratic Iraq, allied with the United States, and providing a base from which we could contain Iran was so valuable. Of course your guy has lost the peace, so that hope has evaporated.

Quote:
That's the absolutely hilarious thing to me. From a tactical and strategic standpoint Iraq was just about the dumbest thing GW could have done. The only thing that could have destabilized the region more would have been to invade Turkey.
Once again, Captain Hindsight makes an appearance. As we didn't know there weren't any weapons of mass destruction left, we also didn't know how the peace would go. Was Bush naive in thinking that people around the world desire to live in a democratic society? Of course. It is the naivete that stems from his belief in the essential goodness of man. You can indeed fault him for that.

Quote:
But I'm honest enough to admit that and smart enough to see it while you're too invested in your point of view or ideological position to give up trying to play a 10 year old game of CYA.
Thanks, Captain Hindsight. Too bad you couldn't go back in time and let all the world's intelligence agencies know that the WMDs were gone.

Quote:
As I mentioned prior, now Iran has a ready made puppet state full of Shia to take over which will give them not only access to the most people in the region, but tons of oil.

Bravo
See Captain Hindsight above. Feel superior now?

Quote:
Hey dude, maybe ending up on watch lists isn't important to you but with my education background it's a big deal to me. I wasn't kidding when I said the science behind these horrific weapons is really fairly simple and anyone can do it with a good lab. Even the high energy physics behind a single stage atomic device is pretty basic by modern standards. My best friend is a Nuclear engineer and could probably design one on a napkin.
Sure, whatever you say. You didn't misspell a word. You are a genius and outsmarted the NSA. Al Qaeda would never think of such a plan.

Quote:
The good thing about that is you can't ever hide where the fissile material came from.
Again, if they were so easy to build, why hasn't al Qaeda built one yet? Why has it taken Iran years to build one? Why are there so few nations on the planet that have them?

Quote:
You left out the part where we wrecked the country, killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and all that.
And, if civilian casualties are your measure of success, do you even realize that millions of civilians were killed during World War Two? MILLIONS. Was it worth it? To you, of course, but tens of thousands of civilians killed in Iraq make that war unjustifiable. Pull up your pants, your hypocrisy is showing. Do you even know what happened in Hiroshima? Do you have any idea of the destruction we caused to Berlin, or Dresden, or Hamburg, or any of the other hundreds of targets in Europe and Japan? That makes our limited damage in Iraq look like a joke. Much destruction was and is being caused by terrorists, but that is hardly our doing, and we worked hard to prevent it. That is, until your guy got into office with his magical RESET button. How's that working out for you?

No country in the history of mankind has spent a hundredth the amount of money and resources we have in an effort to reduce civilian casualties. We use precision munitions when feasible, because they are more effective but also because they reduce collateral damage.

Quote:
our allies were being invaded and attacked by Nazi Germany.
And, since I caught you in a falsehood, I will give you another chance to name the American allies that were invaded and attacked by Hitler before we got involved. I'll wait.

Time after time I've shown that Saddam was Hitler-light. He was equally evil, but not as effective in his execution. "Good riddance" is what a normal person would say. "Too bad he's gone" and "I miss the good old days" is what a liberal says. Your historical knowledge is quite impressive.
__________________
Odumbo: Unpatriotic, Narcissistic Man-Child. Democrat is the Party of Rape, Special Interests, Greed, Slavery, Sloth, Ignorance, Bigotry and Segregation. Click here to save animals! Gun Rights are Civil Rights.

Last edited by fortyofforty; 10-25-2013 at 12:34..
fortyofforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2013, 12:35   #70
Mad Ryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sunny Southern Oregon
Posts: 1,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by fortyofforty View Post
You're back!



He had enough left to threaten his neighbors. You can't have it both ways. Either Saddam had enough left to keep Iran in check or he had nothing left. Which is it? Your own statements are contradictory.



You have no concept of history. Saddam was an evil guy. He killed more Americans before we invaded than Hitler had killed before we invaded Germany. But, no matter how many instances of similarity between the two dictators I lay out, your only retort is ad hominem attacks on me. Very mature. Very constructive.



That is precisely why a free, democratic Iraq, allied with the United States, and providing a base from which we could contain Iran was so valuable. Of course your guy has lost the peace, so that hope has evaporated.



Once again, Captain Hindsight makes an appearance. As we didn't know there weren't any weapons of mass destruction left, we also didn't know how the peace would go. Was Bush naive in thinking that people around the world desire to live in a democratic society? Of course. It is the naivete that stems from his belief in the essential goodness of man. You can indeed fault him for that.



Thanks, Captain Hindsight. Too bad you couldn't go back in time and let all the world's intelligence agencies that the WMDs were gone.



See Captain Hindsight above. Feel superior now?



Sure, whatever you say. You didn't misspell a word. You are a genius and outsmarted the NSA. Al Qaeda would never think of such a plan.



Again, if they were so easy to build, why hasn't al Qaeda built one yet? Why has it taken Iran years to build one? Why are there so few nations on the planet that have them?



And, if civilian casualties are your measure of success, do you even realize that millions of civilians were killed during World War Two? MILLIONS. Was it worth it? To you, of course, but tens of thousands of civilians killed in Iraq make that war unjustifiable. Pull up your pants, your hypocrisy is showing. Do you even know what happened in Hiroshima? Do you have any idea of the destruction we caused to Berlin, or Dresden, or Hamburg, or any of the other hundreds of targets in Europe and Japan? That makes our limited damage in Iraq look like a joke. Much destruction was and is being caused by terrorists, but that is hardly our doing, and we worked hard to prevent it. That is, until your guy got into office with his magical RESET button. How's that working out for you?

No country in the history of mankind has spent a hundredth the amount of money and resources we have in an effort to reduce civilian casualties. We use precision munitions when feasible, because they are more effective but also because they reduce collateral damage.



And, since I caught you in a falsehood, I will give you another chance to name the American allies that were invaded and attacked by Hitler before we got involved. I'll wait.

Time after time I've shown that Saddam was Hitler-light. He was equally evil, but not as effective in his execution. "Good riddance" is what a normal person would say. "Too bad he's gone" and "I miss the good old days" is what a liberal says. Your historical knowledge is quite impressive.
How about this...

Bush and evidently you, have this idea that we can just sprinkle freeberty around and people will become Americans. It's incredibly naive and frankly sort of childish.

My attitude on this is if they want freedom bad enough they can f-ing take it for themselves. Otherwise they won't appreciate it and they'll piss it away.

As such, we had (again) no business trying to liberate a bunch of folks who couldn't be bothered to liberate themselves.

But keep making excuses for GW's dumb ass.

I mean why draw the line at Iraq. By your standards we should have gone into Africa decades ago. We should have invaded N-Korea already.

Can't pick and choose dude. Either we adopt preemptive war and apply it across the board or we go back to a sane strategy of only using military force when it's needed.
__________________
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't...
Mad Ryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2013, 12:50   #71
fortyofforty
Capt. Hindsight
 
fortyofforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Ryan View Post
How about this...

Bush and evidently you, have this idea that we can just sprinkle freeberty around and people will become Americans. It's incredibly naive and frankly sort of childish.
As I said above. For naivete Bush can indeed be criticized. Read what I said.

Quote:
My attitude on this is if they want freedom bad enough they can f-ing take it for themselves. Otherwise they won't appreciate it and they'll piss it away.

As such, we had (again) no business trying to liberate a bunch of folks who couldn't be bothered to liberate themselves.
So, you are against what we did in World War Two, liberating France. And Germany. And Belgium. And Holland. And Norway. Really, dude, you need to be logically consistent. Either you're for preemptive war, as we launched against Hitler and Saddam, or you're against it.

Quote:
But keep making excuses for GW's dumb ass.
Bush is so stupid he went to Yale and has a Harvard MBA. You barely finished high school and spend your days trolling Glock Talk. I think we know who's "dumb" by the personal attacks.

Quote:
I mean why draw the line at Iraq. By your standards we should have gone into Africa decades ago. We should have invaded N-Korea already.

Can't pick and choose dude. Either we adopt preemptive war and apply it across the board or we go back to a sane strategy of only using military force when it's needed.
Yep, can't pick and choose, dude. Either you're for preemptive war in Germany in 1941 or you're not. Can't have it both ways, Captain Hindsight.

You really are something special. Nice try, though.
__________________
Odumbo: Unpatriotic, Narcissistic Man-Child. Democrat is the Party of Rape, Special Interests, Greed, Slavery, Sloth, Ignorance, Bigotry and Segregation. Click here to save animals! Gun Rights are Civil Rights.
fortyofforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2013, 07:48   #72
MZBKA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by fortyofforty View Post
As I said above. For naivete Bush can indeed be criticized. Read what I said.



So, you are against what we did in World War Two, liberating France. And Germany. And Belgium. And Holland. And Norway. Really, dude, you need to be logically consistent. Either you're for preemptive war, as we launched against Hitler and Saddam, or you're against it.



Bush is so stupid he went to Yale and has a Harvard MBA. You barely finished high school and spend your days trolling Glock Talk. I think we know who's "dumb" by the personal attacks.



Yep, can't pick and choose, dude. Either you're for preemptive war in Germany in 1941 or you're not. Can't have it both ways, Captain Hindsight.

You really are something special. Nice try, though.
Germany declared war on the US after the Japanese attacked. That's not a preemptive war.
MZBKA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2013, 05:37   #73
fortyofforty
Capt. Hindsight
 
fortyofforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by MZBKA View Post
Germany declared war on the US after the Japanese attacked. That's not a preemptive war.
So you think in 1941 Germany posed a direct threat to the United States?
__________________
Odumbo: Unpatriotic, Narcissistic Man-Child. Democrat is the Party of Rape, Special Interests, Greed, Slavery, Sloth, Ignorance, Bigotry and Segregation. Click here to save animals! Gun Rights are Civil Rights.
fortyofforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2013, 15:17   #74
Stubudd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Kennesaw GA
Posts: 4,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by fortyofforty View Post
So you think in 1941 Germany posed a direct threat to the United States?
Not gonna read all that because i can guess what all was said. I'll just say, you have to understand you can't have both. You can't have a government that takes over countries on the other side of the world and think they won't take over healthcare and everything else too.

http://www.crispinsartwell.com/bourne.htm


War is the health of the State. It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistable forces for uniformity, for passionate cooperation with the Government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense...the nation in war-time attains a uniformity of feeling, a hierarchy of values culminating at the undisputed apex of the State ideal, which could not possibly be produced through any other agency than war...The State is intimately connected with war, for it is the organization of the collective community when it acts in a political manner, and to act in a political manner towards a rival group has meant, throughout all history - war...

...the State represents all the autocratic, arbitrary, coercive, belligerent forces within a social group, it is a sort of complexus of everything most distasteful to the modern free creative spirit, the feeling for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. War is the health of the State. Only when the State is at war does the modern society function with that unity of sentiment, simple uncritical patriotic devotion, cooperation of services, which have always been the ideal of the State lover...A nation's patriotic history is solely the history of its wars, that is, of the State in its health and glorious functioning. So in responding to the appeal of the flag, we are responding to the appeal of the State, to the symbol of the herd organized as an offensive and defensive body, conscious of its prowess and its mystical herd-strength...

...Once the State has begun to function, and a large class finds its interest and its expression of power in maintaining the State, this ruling class may compel obedience from any uninterested minority. The State thus becomes an instrument by which the power of the whole herd is wielded for the benefit of a class. The rulers soon learn to capitalize the reverence which the State produces in the majority, and turn it into a general resistance towards a lessening of their privileges. The sanctity of the State becomes identified with the sanctity of the ruling class and the latter are permitted to remain in power under the impression that in obeying and serving them, we are obeying and serving society, the nation, the great collectivity of all of us...

http://www.bopsecrets.org/CF/bourne.htm
Stubudd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2013, 15:26   #75
Stubudd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Kennesaw GA
Posts: 4,968
There is only one way out. Less of it, of all of it. They will keep you played against each other, battling each other over whether you need them to save you from boogeymen terrorists or boogeymen insurance execs until they've taken all there is to take.
Stubudd is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:13.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 754
182 Members
572 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42