herfacechair
Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
|
mnottertail: Yep, and so what does that have to do with this?
You insinuated that if we pulled out of Iraq before we accomplish our objectives, we wouldn’t have to worry about “being laughed at” and being attacked. You used our military power as your explanation, and indicated that others wouldn’t be crazy enough to attack us.
I came back and pointed out that not even that military prevented a weaker organization from attacking us.
Building on my argument that we’re involved in asymmetrical warfare, and we’re fighting with an enemy with full intent of eventually fighting the war against us here.
My statement has everything to do with the argument you were involved with, it was a no brainer.
mnottertail: Your statement there above this, might, but has owt to do with mine.
Again, your argument’s thrust was that if we pulled out prematurely, we wouldn’t have to worry about our security here, because nobody would be “crazy enough” to attack the greatest military power.
mnottertail: This, is in a nutshell, a great deal of the issue. There were many vets here (and others) that said, ok fuck it, we are dead set against you going in here based on some notion of WMD and terrorism, but if you are willing to kill every man woman and child in the middle east that affronts us (including saudis and whatnot) then we will back you because to be exactly like saddam hussein is what it is going to take to govern the place. But none of this has owt to do with 9/11.
You mentioned the vets in here and what they said.
I know of allot of veterans, and active military, who didn’t see things that way. I know for a fact that the majority of the troops, and veterans, supported our going in. Their justifications for doing so closely matched what I’m arguing on this thread and elsewhere.
And this isn’t a case about “some notion” about WMD and terrorism.
Take the terror attacks of 9/11, then match it with this scenario:
We had a dictator playing cat and mouse games with regards to his WMD programs, given his past history of supporting terrorists, given his hosting radical terrorist conventions, given his making death to America statements, and given Bin Laden’s search for WMD, and better ways to kill more Americans. Under asymmetrical warfare, not going into Iraq would’ve been equivalent to letting someone play with matches in a room you’re both in, when it’s flooded with gasoline.
Under asymmetrical warfare, Iraq had EVERYTHING to do with asymmetrical warfare.
On one hand, you have the one that approved 9/11 looking for a way to take thousands, millions of Americans out at one time. On the other hand, you have a dictator playing cat and mouse with the very program that could result in the first person getting what he wants.
My side of the argument asks the other side of the argument to simply connect the dots.
mnottertail: Note that a great deal of the furor here in the states is not coming from the pinko faggot communist hippy preppy college richies of yore, rather it is coming from 'the establishment'.
What matters is that communists and socialists, or people who hold such beliefs but don’t identify themselves as such, form the opinion leaders for the other side of the argument.
Pinkme2 and I provided sufficient evidence that the people leading the other side of the argument, the protest organizers, are associated, directly or indirectly, with communists and socialists.
The people on this board may not be communists, or pinkos, but if they don’t support such organizations, they need to realize that many of their opinion leaders have those associations.
Especially if they’re not examining the side of the storey under represented in the media.
My side of the argument comes to these forums to present another side of the debate. I’ve talked to people, face to face, good people with well intentions, who believe in the Anti Iraq hype because they don’t have access to the total picture, the proper perspective.
Just to watch them change their positions when given a proper perspective of what’s going on.
People on my side of the debate come here to provide that proper perspective.
mnottertail: There has not been one soul here that says you get out after the terrorists and the people who did 9/11 or financed it, or planned it or was ancillary to it, that we won't back that fuckin' job to the hilt.
Doesn’t sound like farglebarlge is with you there.
“And you LOST IRAQ. The Locals Won, and the world didn't end” -farglebargle
“If the US TROOPS weren't there, THEY WOULDN'T BE DYING.” -farglebargle
“I wonder why Bush Supporters want the troops to die?” -farglebargle
“And your false-pride is killing 3 US Troops each and every day?” -farglebargle
“if we want to lower troop casualties, we have to let our troops *COME THE FUCK HOME.*” -farglebargle fixed statement
Allot of people that you do describe actually don’t support the military’s job to the hilt, I call these the “support the troops but not the war” crowd. If you don’t support the war, then you’re not backing the military’s job to the hilt.
mnottertail: Regarding your quip about vietnam, as I remember that great and venerable 'Democrat' of a Richard Nixon was the one who threw in the towel on that little imbriglio. So lets not spill over with examples that have no bearing on everything all the time.
Here’s what your memory left out.
Richard Nixon did what his predecessors failed to do, rolled his sleeves up and got to business of winning.
He drastically reduced troop numbers, reduced the section of the budget dedicated to the Vietnam War, and commenced bombing the day lights out of North Vietnam. It got to the point to where the North had no other choice but to come to the peace table to negotiate an end.
This resulted in our troops pulling out and letting the two Vietnams carry out the remainder of our agreement.
Remember, the last US combat unit was out of Vietnam MONTHS before the fall of Saigon.
Now, given that congress has the power of the purse, they’re the one’s that appropriate money. Nixon’s successor begged them to NOT UNDERFUND, or CUT THE FUNDING for the South Vietnamese.
His requests fell on deaf ears. The DEMOCRAT congress cut funding for South Vietnam, essentially making us abandon an ally at a time of need. Without that funding, they couldn’t hold up, and they fell.
My statement stands. The DEMOCRATS pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory, and contributed to winning the Vietnam War for the communists--on US Soil.
mnottertail: As you may have guessed, I am in complete disagreement that your refutations were logical, germain or topical.
I wouldn’t have rebutted you point by point if you were in complete agreement with me.
Your opinions as to whether I presented a logical, reasoned argument or not doesn’t dismiss the fact that I’ve presented a reasoned, logical argument backed by facts. Look at my posts with an impartial mind, and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
Your disagreement with me is going to cloud your judgement, and partiality, about the nature of my argument.
Anybody’s pride would do that to defend a position that was just proven wrong. Or in the wrong.
mnottertail: I don't possess the will to sit here and refute neo-conservatives
That’s because the facts, geostratetic, geopolitical, and other realities don’t support your position, but that of these “neo-conservatives”.
Common sense, arguing with people with a better grasp on the subject is like entering a gun fight with a spork.
The person “with the spork” loses the will to conduct massive refutation for fear of the consequences.
mnottertail: with their ass in a swivel chair and their feet in the wastebasket
This coming from the guy that said this:
“Note that a great deal of the furor here in the states is not coming from the pinko faggot communist hippy preppy college richies of yore, rather it is coming from 'the establishment'. -mnottertail
There’s a word for someone that denies a stereotype applied toward that person’s group, but turns around and applies a stereotype to a group he disagrees with.
mnottertail: sockpuppeting unlearned cogitation, word for word or sentence for sentence.
You’re assuming that those of us that argue against your position “didn’t” come up with our position on our own. That assumption doesn’t come anywhere near to reality.
What I’m arguing here, are my own assessments. I didn’t need someone to tell me what to think, or tell me what position I should hold.
I came up with my assessment, what you’re disagreeing with, from my military experiences, from my research, reading books, accessing multiple information sources, and so on.
The same is applicable to other people fighting on my side of the argument, they came up with their own assessments based on their experiences and sources of information.
I recommend that you voice something other than the same message and themes that I’ve refuted over four years, against multiple liberals, before insinuating that those on my side of the argument are just “parroting” what we were “fed”.
|
RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread