RE: Moveon.org's Ad Mocking Petraeus (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


HaveRopeWillBind -> RE: Moveon.org's Ad Mocking Petraeus (9/11/2007 8:04:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611
The problem is that his testimony wasnt good enough for politicians who want a clear answer right now, immediately, if not sooner. They dont want to wait.


Ummmmmm, do you suppose that might have anything to do with the fact that back at the beginning of the year he promised a clear answer in September? 




caitlyn -> RE: Moveon.org's Ad Mocking Petraeus (9/11/2007 8:34:01 PM)

Ranger is a poster I hold in high regard, but don't think much of his last post.
 
Cyberdude on the other hand, is a person I rarely agree with, but he did tend to hit the nail on the head. The general is a soldier, doing the task assigned to him by the civilian leadership that gives the orders. It isn't his place to say we should retreat. It is his place to execute his order, until we have new leaders with new orders that are more reflective on the people.
 
Attacking Petraeus is senseless. What do people want him to do ... act like it's his own personal military, to do with as he wishes?




SusanofO -> RE: Moveon.org's Ad Mocking Petraeus (9/11/2007 8:41:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

The general is a soldier, doing the task assigned to him by the civilian leadership that gives the orders. It isn't his place to say we should retreat. It is his place to execute his order, until we have new leaders with new orders that are more reflective on the people.
 
Attacking Petraeus is senseless. What do people want him to do ... act like it's his own personal military, to do with as he wishes?


Bingo, IMO. Whatever he does - some are going to say he is "Bush's puppet". Well, which one of them was elected to office? Who is "Commander-in-Chief"?

- Susan




UtopianRanger -> RE: Moveon.org's Ad Mocking Petraeus (9/11/2007 9:33:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger

quote:

I may be a liberal, and proud of it, but I found the Moveon.org NYTimes ad mocking Gen. Petraeus to be appalling.



 Be-tray-us =  A creature of the regime.....a puppet with many strings....a future fiscal officer of a defense contractor.....or,  possibly, a ''prestigious fellow'' of a pro-neocon think tank bent on conquest and control [;)]


R,

I'm very surprised.  And disappointed.

Firm




Hey Look Firmhand…..you and I have often been in disagreement in matters such as these….but we’ve always been cordial.  

I know that you are a former US Army officer……and I a former US Marine. Do you somehow think/feel my little quip was reflective of you? I normally have a high degree of respect for all military brass, but in the upper echelons these days, political expediency-- for the purpose of an extremely rewarding afterlife-- seems to rule the day.  

I mean, lets face it…..The Generals of today are not like those of yesteryear ; they just aren’t satisfied with writing a few books—about ''Old Yeller'' and such--- and playing golf a five days a week after/during their retirement - they want to become part of corporate hierarchies and lead dynamic lives. And to accomplish that you need to play the game.  

With specific regard to General Pretraeus :  It’s my feeling he sold himself out by signing on with the Bush administration in his current capacity.  

As a renowned expert and author who penned the Army’s new official Counterinsurgency Doctrine, General Petraeus seems to have abandoned his own logic and strategic analysis with regard to defeating /controlling an internal rebellion of the current stature.  

By virtue of his own admission – The ''surge'' cannot succeed in its current form; they just don’t have enough manpower. This leads to me to believe General Petreaus will just become another sacrificial lamb in the Bush Administrations attempt to buy itself more time.





- R  




UtopianRanger -> RE: Moveon.org's Ad Mocking Petraeus (9/11/2007 10:03:46 PM)

quote:



Attacking Petraeus is senseless. What do people want him to do ... act like it's his own personal military, to do with as he wishes?


 He should have tendered his resignation immediately after they asked him to become the point man of a truly insidious mission that he/they knew could/would not succeed.





- R






lazarus1983 -> RE: Moveon.org's Ad Mocking Petraeus (9/11/2007 10:39:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger

quote:

I may be a liberal, and proud of it, but I found the Moveon.org NYTimes ad mocking Gen. Petraeus to be appalling.



 Be-tray-us =  A creature of the regime.....a puppet with many strings....a future fiscal officer of a defense contractor.....or,  possibly, a ''prestigious fellow'' of a pro-neocon think tank bent on conquest and control [;)]


R,

I'm very surprised.  And disappointed.

Firm




Hey Look Firmhand…..you and I have often been in disagreement in matters such as these….but we’ve always been cordial.  

I know that you are a former US Army officer……and I a former US Marine. Do you somehow think/feel my little quip was reflective of you? I normally have a high degree of respect for all military brass, but in the upper echelons these days, political expediency-- for the purpose of an extremely rewarding afterlife-- seems to rule the day.  

I mean, lets face it…..The Generals of today are not like those of yesteryear ; they just aren’t satisfied with writing a few books—about ''Old Yeller'' and such--- and playing golf a five days a week after/during their retirement - they want to become part of corporate hierarchies and lead dynamic lives. And to accomplish that you need to play the game.  

With specific regard to General Pretraeus :  It’s my feeling he sold himself out by signing on with the Bush administration in his current capacity.  

As a renowned expert and author who penned the Army’s new official Counterinsurgency Doctrine, General Petraeus seems to have abandoned his own logic and strategic analysis with regard to defeating /controlling an internal rebellion of the current stature.  

By virtue of his own admission – The ''surge'' cannot succeed in its current form; they just don’t have enough manpower. This leads to me to believe General Petreaus will just become another sacrificial lamb in the Bush Administrations attempt to buy itself more time.





- R  


You beat me to the punch. I'm a former US Army paratrooper (Airbooorne!), and I was going to say that the higher echelons of the military are not to be trusted.

We all know how officers love to make up ribbons so they can award themselves with them. In airborne divisions, you get foreign jump wings if you have made a jump in that foreign country. However, officers have found a way around that, by making it so that if your jumpmaster is from a foreign country, then that also counts towards getting a neat little pair of foreign jump wings.

But higher echelon officers are just political puppets. Anyone remember General Tommy "Career Counselor" Franks?

In today's age, General Patton never would have made it to a Private First Class.




Owner59 -> RE: Moveon.org's Ad Mocking Petraeus (9/11/2007 10:45:30 PM)

Did enyone notice, that he was NOT under oath?

Why should that be?




Sinergy -> RE: Moveon.org's Ad Mocking Petraeus (9/11/2007 10:48:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HaveRopeWillBind

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611
The problem is that his testimony wasnt good enough for politicians who want a clear answer right now, immediately, if not sooner. They dont want to wait.


Ummmmmm, do you suppose that might have anything to do with the fact that back at the beginning of the year he promised a clear answer in September? 


You know, HaveRopeWillBind, it just pisses off the Iraq War Cheerleaders when you try to tell them that the things they are saying today disagree with the things they said yesterday.

We will all be much happier if we turn off our brains and agree to not remember any of the things they told us yesterday.

My personal favorite was Dick Cheney saying in 1991 that going into Iraq would be a huge mistake, resulting in sectarian violence and a quagmire we could never get out of.  Then saying in 2001 that going into Iraq was necessary and required and it would be a simple thing for the US to take care of.  It is like these people do not realize that somewhere along the way a thing called a video camera was invented which allows people to capture an image or speech in the past and save it for posterity.

Sinergy

p.s.  I hope the current adminstration has a nice bus picked out for Petraeus. 

p.p.s.  I am a bit puzzled why FirmHanKY, who stated a few months ago that he believed in Petraeus and thought the surge would work, has not treated us to a concise and articulate computer modelling analysis which empirically proves that the surge did, in fact, work. 




Sinergysdarlin -> RE: Moveon.org's Ad Mocking Petraeus (9/11/2007 10:57:27 PM)


~fast reply~
Allman Brothers Band, The: Whipping Post

I been run down, i been lied to,
I don't know why i let that mean woman make me a fool.
She took all my money, wrecked my new car.
Now she's with one of my goodtime buddies,
They're drinkin' in some crosstown bar.

Sometimes i feel, sometimes i feel,
Like i been tied to the whipping post,
Tied to the whipping post,
Tied to the whipping post,
Good lord, i feel like i'm dyin'.

My friends tell me, that i've been such a fool,
And i have to stand by and take it baby, all for lovin' you.
Drown myself in sorrow, and i look at what you've down.
But nothin' seems to change, the bad times stay the same,
And i can't run.

Sometimes i feel, sometimes i feel,
Like i been tied to the whipping post
Tied to the whipping post,
Tied to the whipping post,
Good lord, i feel like i'm dyin'.

Sometimes i feel, sometimes i feel,
Like i been tied to the whipping post
Tied to the whipping post,
Tied to the whipping post,
Good lord, i feel like i'm dyin'.

ps--god bless amerika




popeye1250 -> RE: Moveon.org's Ad Mocking Petraeus (9/11/2007 11:46:56 PM)

Big news today. Bush says we can pull out 30,000 Troops,.............."Next Summer."
It's always "another 6 months", and then,......."another 6 months" with these people.
Just hand the keys over to the Iraqis and leave.
But, they say we can't do that or we'll "lose".
Lose what?
McCain said they'll, "follow us home."
Hey Senator, that Mexican border is wide open and thanks to that they're *probably* already here!




samboct -> RE: Moveon.org's Ad Mocking Petraeus (9/12/2007 7:29:55 AM)

OK, from reading the above posts, Petraeus has the credentials to do the job if anybody can- or is there somebody out there that would be better?  Let's say he realizes this- and that Bush asks (orders?) him in.  What exactly are his options?

1)  Tell the Pres that he's gotten himself into a quagmire that he can't be extricated from- and tender his resignation.  Honorable, but who takes charge of the quagmire?  Will it be somebody as capable as he is?
2)  What if by not taking command, it devolves to General Smith, who is a pencil pushing geek, and will certainly lose more troops and keep saying we can win?
3)  What if he thinks that there is a possibility that he might be successful?  In order to do this, he has to play along with the administration, but he might save some lives.
4)  Isn't he the best one to tell people that it's time to get out?  What if that option isn't acceptable now, but is in 3 months from now?  OK, I'm reaching here.  I think it would be acceptable now, but I'm not in his shoes.

Ranger and Lazarus-

I'm sorry, but I think Petraeus is between a rock and a hard place.  If he orders a withdrawal, loyal Bushies are gonna hate the guy- they're not going to give him a cushy job- he'll be the guy that lost the war.  If he doesn't solve the problem, he's going to get covered in so much crap, that no medals on his chest will ever shine.  And I suspect that he thinks that Iraq is unsolveable, but he's the best person to get us out which means the guy's falling on his sword.

In short, by attacking the guy personally, all you're doing is making his job harder.  And it's a job I sure as hell wouldn't want- who would?  But I do think that coming up with a set of metrics that make sense- probably the GAOs- and telling the guy that if these metrics aren't met within 3 months, then we pull out.  If he says that's not possible- then pull out now.  But I think we've got to give the guy his chance and make sure that everybody knows what's going to happen.  People in the Mideast are notorious for negotiating up to a deadline (and then some.)  We haven't made our deadlines clear.  Don't make the assumption that reasonable people would act in a certain way and make the assumption that we'd pull out if things hadn't improved- these aren't reasonable people and need to be handed rules like children in kindergarten.  If they're given firm rules as to what's going to happen, then it really does devolve to their own choices.

Note- on a personal basis- I haven't changed my opinion about Iraq.  But politics is about compromise, and there needs to be some give and take here- even though the Bush administration as been doing no giving and lots of taking.  Doesn't mean that the rest of us should stoop to their level.

Sam




Mercnbeth -> RE: Moveon.org's Ad Mocking Petraeus (9/12/2007 8:05:10 AM)

quote:

My personal favorite was Dick Cheney saying in 1991 that going into Iraq would be a huge mistake, resulting in sectarian violence and a quagmire we could never get out of.  Then saying in 2001 that going into Iraq was necessary and required and it would be a simple thing for the US to take care of.
I guess this is a critical time comparison and in 10 years nothing changed? It's similar to relationships, you know you swear you've got the perfect mate and 10 years later you divorce the bitch. Should your initial opinion be thrown up in your face 10 years later?

Isolated historical references are a weak supporting argument for any current position. I favored action in Iraq for a variety of reasons. The method of entry and the resulting failure to succeed changed my position. Now - I'd leave today and give each side a few nukes with 1000 mile range so they could really kill each other efficiently.

Ideally we should elect an administration with the ability to transport through time to insure that decision made 10 years ago work today.

Which party has the keys to the DeLorean?

Meanwhile, what do you think George Soros' meant by "We bought and paid for this party...." In reference to the Democratic Party? 
quote:

Some people are unaware that George Soros’ MoveOn organization requires Democrat Capitol leaders to consult with their representatives every morning. “We bought and paid for this party” they say and they intend to get their moneys worth.

Some people are unaware that the bulk of the DRC operating and campaign funds now come from various Soros’ organizations as well as the left coasts’ loony left fraternity (mostly Hollywood).


Its not an effort to point to any "better" or even "less worse" party; rather it points to the similarity. The distinction is only which funding group impacts policy. Note - rarely are facts or plan presented by either except in conjunction of why what was done 10 years ago was wrong. It serves the pap eating masses who accept the buzz word blitz offering nothing more than insult and "Monday Morning Quarterback" critique.

Instead of looking at either party platform to determine what will happen after election a better predictor would be to check out the agenda from the election funding sources. If Soro's has such a good plan with all his money why doesn't he run? I guess there is more power in manipulating the strings than being the puppet.




Sinergy -> RE: Moveon.org's Ad Mocking Petraeus (9/12/2007 10:13:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

My personal favorite was Dick Cheney saying in 1991 that going into Iraq would be a huge mistake, resulting in sectarian violence and a quagmire we could never get out of.  Then saying in 2001 that going into Iraq was necessary and required and it would be a simple thing for the US to take care of.
I guess this is a critical time comparison and in 10 years nothing changed? It's similar to relationships, you know you swear you've got the perfect mate and 10 years later you divorce the bitch. Should your initial opinion be thrown up in your face 10 years later?

Isolated historical references are a weak supporting argument for any current position. I favored action in Iraq for a variety of reasons. The method of entry and the resulting failure to succeed changed my position. Now - I'd leave today and give each side a few nukes with 1000 mile range so they could really kill each other efficiently.



Interesting.  So in order to clean up a mess the United States started you would turn a sovereign nation and all the people who live in it into a radioactive glaze.  Were you upset with Timothy McVeigh when he blew up the Federal Building filled with people that were simply trying to live their lives?  Same game, different jersey.

I dont consider wholesale slaughter of innocent people a positive, but if it works for you, keep it up.

Please clarify what Soros has to do with Petraeus?

Now, I would love to hear your lucid analysis detailing what changed between 1991 and 2001 which caused Cheney to change his mind about Iraq.  My own personal guess would be the changes to the US military resulting in streamlining and increase in C3I capabilities during the Clinton years (Rumsfeld:  One goes to war with the military built by their predecessor, 1990) built a military that Rumsfeld and Cheney assumed could go in and conquer Iraq in a week to ten days, and convinced AnencephalyBoy that we would be welcomed as heroes, while ignoring the expertly crafted study of possible outcomes of an invasion of Iraq provided to them by the Clinton administration.  What this study stated would happen, did, in fact, happen exactly as postulated by Clinton et al.

I was citing a historical curiosity, Mercnbeth, not attempting to prove a specific point.

Sinergy




Mercnbeth -> RE: Moveon.org's Ad Mocking Petraeus (9/12/2007 11:46:23 AM)

quote:

You know, HaveRopeWillBind, it just pisses off the Iraq War Cheerleaders when you try to tell them that the things they are saying today disagree with the things they said yesterday.

We will all be much happier if we turn off our brains and agree to not remember any of the things they told us yesterday.

My personal favorite was Dick Cheney saying in 1991
I'm not an "Iraq War Cheerleader" but how is the reference to "turn off our brains..." not a attempt at 20/20 hide-sight. If you need a time line for why someone would have a different opinion of Iraq how can you make any comment regarding why the opinion would change? Disagree and say "Ha Ha - I told you so!" all you want - but I'd challenge that your expectation and advice about what to do in Iraq now would have very little resemblance as to what will be 10 years down the road.

quote:

So in order to clean up a mess the United States started you would turn a sovereign nation and all the people who live in it into a radioactive glaze. 
Leaving with creating a balance of power between the factions would be a moral obligation. Should the fine civilized people of the region chose to use the weapons to turn themselves into a "radioactive glaze" would be their choice. Aren't you a fan of self determination?

Okay so ten years wasn't enough now you need to go back to Tim McVeigh? He did what he did and earned the consequence. He "declared war" on the US and fortunately he was an army of few, destroyed by a surgical strikes. "Radical Islam" has declared war too. Fortunately their "civilization" is self loathing and tribal. I'd use that against them and give them an opportunity to succeed in their goal of killing each other. After all the years of 'Western' exploitation - we owe them that.

quote:

 I dont consider wholesale slaughter of innocent people a positive, but if it works for you, keep it up.
...built a military that Rumsfeld and Cheney assumed could go in and conquer Iraq in a week to ten days, and convinced AnencephalyBoy
I would think that you'd tire of baiting and insult but understand that the weakness of your arguments requires the use of the tactic along with name calling. 

People living in a war zone may be innocent but die daily. My excusing their "wholesale slaughter" is the equivalent of you excusing the "wholesale slaughter" that occurred 6 years ago yesterday. I believe the biggest error the President made was not being as uncivilized as our adversaries. Radical Islam dictates the terms of this war - its dirty, our opponents don't wear uniforms, and have no "home base" recognized in the world. The powers that be in the 'West' have the honest and forthright position of Radical Islam in front of them in the face of the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. His clear goal is to develop nuclear weapons and use them; first on Israel and then the West, the US in particular. I've said many times, President Ahmadinejad should be a role model for US politicians because regardless of criticism he's stayed focused on this goal.

President Bush's weakness is that he tried to placate his expected critics and as a result the US effort died by countless paper cuts. He abused the men under his command by not knowing that a traditional 'civilized' victory was impossible with a uncivilized enemy and indigenous people who place no value on the democracy the President and his administration established as a goal. The President's stubbornness and his weakness and fear of speaking directly and forthright as compared to President Ahmadinejad illustrates both why we've already lost in the Iraq battle and why I fear, without a change in that attitude, we can lose the Radical Islamic war.

quote:

Please clarify what Soros has to do with Petraeus?
Maybe you should ask Mr. Soros. He saw it necessary that his organization publish the ad concerning the General. Soros' words were that of a dissatified customer who thought he had purchased a political party and didn't think he got value for his purchase.

A better question concerning this thead would be, what McVeigh had to do with Iraq? However, since I already responded - no need to respond.




samboct -> RE: Moveon.org's Ad Mocking Petraeus (9/12/2007 2:30:59 PM)

"I believe the biggest error the President made was not being as uncivilized as our adversaries. Radical Islam dictates the terms of this war - its dirty, our opponents don't wear uniforms, and have no "home base" recognized in the world. The powers that be in the 'West' have the honest and forthright position of Radical Islam in front of them in the face of the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. His clear goal is to develop nuclear weapons and use them; first on Israel and then the West, the US in particular. I've said many times, President Ahmadinejad should be a role model for US politicians because regardless of criticism he's stayed focused on this goal.

President Bush's weakness is that he tried to placate his expected critics and as a result the US effort died by countless paper cuts. He abused the men under his command by not knowing that a traditional 'civilized' victory was impossible with a uncivilized enemy and indigenous people who place no value on the democracy the President and his administration established as a goal. The President's stubbornness and his weakness and fear of speaking directly and forthright as compared to President Ahmadinejad illustrates both why we've already lost in the Iraq battle and why I fear, without a change in that attitude, we can lose the Radical Islamic war. "

Oh, so let's see.  Saying the Geneva convention doesn't apply to terrorists so we can waterboard them, cause permanent physical damage, and humiliate them in ways that if these measures were done to our own troops, would be decried as inhumane, throwing out habeus corpus and wiretapping our own populace, doesn't count as sinking low enough?  We've already shot plenty of women and children- should our troops be told to start raping the ones that they feel like?  What exactly do you hope to accomplish- make sure that the remaining 35 Iraqis who actually thought the US was trying to do them a favor are pissed off as well?

Your argument that we have a wonderful example in the President of Iran of Radical Islam just plays into the terrorists hands.  Rather than catch Osama Bin Laden, the acknowledged leader and attacker of the US- we dethrone Gaddamn Hussein- but now you want to go after Pres. Ahmadinejad?  Basically, it's all towelheads look alike to you, so it doesn't matter which one we beat up on- they're all the same- right?  This type of thinking is exactly what Osama Bin Laden hoped to accomplish, and boy, you and this country fell for his move hook, line and sinker. 

If you think the US effort died by 1,000 paper cuts, you haven't been paying attention to what's going on.  If the only tool you've got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.  Well, using military force in Iraq was the wrong thing to do.  You gave Bush, Cheney et al a free pass when they decided 10 years later that invading Iraq and deposing Gaddamn was a good idea- but they never backed it up.  Where were their studies (Clinton et al showed it would be a bad idea) that showed that the US could actually stabilize the region- WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO READ OR SPEAK THE FUCKING LANGUAGE?  Where were the people trained to take over the services needed like power companies or phone companies?  How about banks?  Bush, Cheney et al. didn't have a clue, and it was the idiots in Washington and folks like you who believed them that made this mess possible.  So odds are we're going to get into another mess in this part of the world until you look yourself in the mirror and take some responsibility for your actions.  Pretty soon our options are only going to be to nuke them or let them do what they want, because the rest of the world isn't going to listen to us, and we can't afford to play policemen on the permanent basis that Bush seems to think is inevitable.


Sam




Mercnbeth -> RE: Moveon.org's Ad Mocking Petraeus (9/12/2007 3:13:19 PM)

quote:

Oh, so let's see.  Saying the Geneva convention doesn't apply to terrorists so we can waterboard them, cause permanent physical damage, and humiliate them in ways that if these measures were done to our own troops, would be decried as inhumane, throwing out habeus corpus and wiretapping our own populace, doesn't count as sinking low enough?
The soldiers and their superior officers were brought to trial. Our enemies use children as suicide bombers. If waterboarding prevents one but misses 3; no - we haven't "sunk low enough". We haven't gotten as low as need be to combat an enemy who has their own children manning the front lines; or view as a representative leader a person hiding away in a cave recruiting more of the same.
quote:

 What exactly do you hope to accomplish- make sure that the remaining 35 Iraqis who actually thought the US was trying to do them a favor are pissed off as well?
Glad to hear there is only 35. I don't feel so bad if they are sacrificed by holding the position that I "hope to accomplish" the death of all who would see me die. It's the stated, well published, and often shouted position of our enemy. Why shouldn't it be ours? Is your answer a question; "Are we no better?" My answer to that is; we can't be. I would also concur with those who often ask; "Do we think we are better than them?" - No, no superiority is implied or can be afforded. We should be equal in our resolve and our methods and not think ourself any better. 
quote:

If the only tool you've got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. 
Works for me - Much prefer being the hammer in that example anyway.

quote:

Pretty soon our options are only going to be to nuke them or let them do what they want, because the rest of the world isn't going to listen to us, and we can't afford to play policemen on the permanent basis that Bush seems to think is inevitable.
No disagreement from me in that position. Substantiates my suggesting of leaving them a few limited range nukes behind to play with among themselves.




farglebargle -> RE: Moveon.org's Ad Mocking Petraeus (9/12/2007 4:19:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger

quote:



Attacking Petraeus is senseless. What do people want him to do ... act like it's his own personal military, to do with as he wishes?


He should have tendered his resignation immediately after they asked him to become the point man of a truly insidious mission that he/they knew could/would not succeed.





- R





He would have shown both Honor and Integrity in that action. But nope. He's just another Administration Tool.





farglebargle -> RE: Moveon.org's Ad Mocking Petraeus (9/12/2007 4:23:50 PM)


Rockin' In The Free World by Neil Young
--------
There's colors on the street
Red, white and blue
People shufflin' their feet
People sleepin' in their shoes
But there's a warnin' sign on the road ahead
There's a lot of people sayin' we'd be better off dead
Don't feel like Satan, but I am to them
So I try to forget it, any way I can.

Keep on rockin' in the free world,
Keep on rockin' in the free world
Keep on rockin' in the free world,
Keep on rockin' in the free world.

I see a woman in the night
With a baby in her hand
Under an old street light
Near a garbage can
Now she puts the kid away, and she's gone to get a hit
She hates her life, and what she's done to it
There's one more kid that will never go to school
Never get to fall in love, never get to be cool.

Keep on rockin' in the free world,
Keep on rockin' in the free world
Keep on rockin' in the free world,
Keep on rockin' in the free world.

We got a thousand points of light
For the homeless man
We got a kinder, gentler,
Machine gun hand
We got department stores and toilet paper
Got styrofoam boxes for the ozone layer
Got a man of the people, says keep hope alive
Got fuel to burn, got roads to drive.

Keep on rockin' in the free world,
Keep on rockin' in the free world
Keep on rockin' in the free world,
Keep on rockin' in the free world.

YEAH. That's it.




samboct -> RE: Moveon.org's Ad Mocking Petraeus (9/12/2007 4:34:58 PM)

"The soldiers and their superior officers were brought to trial. Our enemies use children as suicide bombers. If waterboarding prevents one but misses 3; no - we haven't "sunk low enough". We haven't gotten as low as need be to combat an enemy who has their own children manning the front lines; or view as a representative leader a person hiding away in a cave recruiting more of the same."

Right.  So I know this nice kid- lets call him "Ian" that's going over to Iraq.  We're going to order "Ian" to torture people on the off chance that although it hasn't worked yet reliably, it's going to start working now and yielding useful information.  Since we've been too nice to the Iraqi's let's order "Ian" to shove a hot poker up the rectum of a 6 year old girl while her father watches and see if he talks.  You want to give that order?  I sure as hell don't and I don't want "Ian" to be in a position of either disobeying an order or torturing someone.  I'd be happy shooting whoever gave that order.  Our troops signed up to be part of a military that follows the Geneva convention- condoning torture degrades them, and degrades us and makes martyrs out of the tortured Iraqis.

The Japanese threw kids as suicide bombers at us in WWII and they killed a hell of a lot more servicemen than the Iraqis have succeeded at.  Should we have tortured their parents as well?  (Under the hypothetical case that we invaded Japan.) Seems to me that you're happy having the blood of others on your hands- but I'm not.

"Glad to hear there is only 35. I don't feel so bad if they are sacrificed by holding the position that I "hope to accomplish" the death of all who would see me die. It's the stated, well published, and often shouted position of our enemy. Why shouldn't it be ours? Is your answer a question; "Are we no better?" My answer to that is; we can't be. I would also concur with those who often ask; "Do we think we are better than them?" - No, no superiority is implied or can be afforded. We should be equal in our resolve and our methods and not think ourself any better."

OK- you speak Farsi?  If you do, I know translators are in short supply- I'm sure that the occupying forces could use you.  If not, then how exactly do you know what the hell they're saying?  Because I sure don't.  And since this administration lied through its teeth about WMD as a reason for invasion as well as their post invasion plans, I'm not exactly in a trusting mood that they're translating what exactly is being said, or that it represents a majority of the people over there.

This is the type of jingoistic claptrap that called for a preemptory nuclear strike on the Russians too.  Seems to me that these days, the Russians don't seem to be so eager to be eating American corpses.  For countries that were at each other's throats less than a generation ago, things sure seem to have calmed down pretty fast.  You actually met anybody from Iraq or Iran that wants you dead?  How exactly are they going to accomplish this task?  They have no Navy, their Air Force could be wiped out by one US carrier (and they'd need to refuel at bases a lot closer and who exactly is going to let them do that), Or are they going to ride camels all the way here? 
They have no nuclear weapons.   All the other WMD stuff was just propaganda- ours, used to attempt to justify a war over oil.  Besides- we do have military options other than invading- we could blockade them.  It'd be trivial to cut off the world's supply of Iraqi/Iranian oil- it either goes through pipelines (very delicate and easily cut with a few men, ) or with tankers- aka targets to submarines.  They need oil money more than the world needs their oil, it's just the folks running the show in this country that make more money this way.  And these are the creeps that you're supporting with this type of talk and who are counting on your vote in the next election.

Sam





caitlyn -> RE: Moveon.org's Ad Mocking Petraeus (9/12/2007 4:45:49 PM)

How do you know that he isn't of the mind that the only way to out, and save lives, is to have a good commander on the ground?
 
How do you know he isn't equally against, and horrified by the war, and views this as the fastest way within his power, to force a conclusion?
 
That answer is, that you don't. You are both simply making commentary about someone you don't even know, and making it without consideration of any other factors. I'll let the wisdom of that, speak for itself.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875