RE: Jihad Jane???

RE: Jihad Jane??? (Full Version)

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

Message

farglebargle -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/4/2007 9:09:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Let's sum up all this: Either: A) You Want OUR TROOPS TO DIE IN IRAQ. or B) You Want OUR TROOPS HOME NOW. Pick one. If you don't bring them home, more will die. Period. Everything else is just the cowardly avoidance of YOUR responsibility for those deaths. I reject your options. I want UAV's with 20mm cannon destroying everything that crosses the Iranian border except through checkpoints. I want snipers killed BEFORE they get a shot off. If our guys are bleeding and dying, I want them to win. Do you actually look foward to us losing another war? When I am forced to violence, it isn't over until I've bitten a kneecap, and I don't go to the emergency room alone. Bloody nose is enough for some I guess. You don't reject my options. You just refuse to accept the moral cost of your inaction. You want more Americans to die. You may articulate various reasons for wanting it, but your reasons don't match Lincoln's explanation at Gettysburg about why a Constitutional Republic mobilizes. And that means it's WRONG. And God hates it, and it's doomed to failure. You got SUCKERED into going into Iraq. Bush played you like any fraudster plays a mark. And now that you got fooled into spending 3000 American Lives and 300 Billion Dollars and 250,000 Iraqi Lives you want MORE DEAD AMERICANS because you're ashamed to have been played for a sucker by Bush. Personally, I don't give a shit what crosses Iraq's border because THEY ARE NOT A THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES. Unless you think Iraq is the 51st State or something. And unless you know where that 300 Billion Dollars was wasted, you're not going to be able to afford those drones. Shit, Bush can't secure the US BORDERS! What makes you think he can keep Iranian Teenage Assholes from slipping across and having a kegger, and taking some shots at the troops? You think Bush's 48,000 Troops can do that? Nope? Then why didn't Bush have the BALLS to go to Congress and demand the 250,000 he really needs?

audioguy58 -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/4/2007 9:18:25 PM)
quote: Do you actually look foward to us losing another war? Yes. Absolutely. Sincerely, Kevin

WyrdRich -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/4/2007 9:24:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle You want more Americans to die. Pretty inflammatory statement, Fargle. Maybe pop over to the 'Health and Safety' forum and do some reading on large scale insertions..... Same logic; You want millions of already poverty stricken people to die a slow death from starvation when we start converting cropland from food to hemp for bio-diesel. That's ok, might drop the price of an 1/8th a little bit huh?

Sternhand4 -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/4/2007 9:29:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: audioguy58 quote: Do you actually look foward to us losing another war? Yes. Absolutely. Sincerely, Kevin I was initially pissed to read your comment, but after reading your profile I can see where you would like this to happen. As its your desire to wear a burka, and serve under foreign control please let me know how I can help you arrange a departure to the middle east for you. I think you'll find when under islamic law a new respect for this country. They appear to be a highly tolerent people and very understanding of alternate lifestyles. S

farglebargle -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/4/2007 9:42:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle You want more Americans to die. Pretty inflammatory statement, Fargle. Maybe pop over to the 'Health and Safety' forum and do some reading on large scale insertions..... Accept the results of YOUR choices. If you don't want the troops home NOW, then MORE WILL DIE. Those deaths are not MY moral responsibility, they are yours. What will you say at the Pearly Gates? "I was ashamed to have been fooled by Bush's lies, that Iraq was a threat to the United States, that we had to act immediately, or next time NY would be nuked"? Will that be sufficient to offset your moral responsibility for the dead? quote: Same logic; You want millions of already poverty stricken people to die a slow death from starvation when we start converting cropland from food to hemp for bio-diesel. That's ok, might drop the price of an 1/8th a little bit huh? Look, I understand that it's painful to be confronted with the cold, hard reality of ones involvement in the needless deaths of thousands. It's hard to admit you let yourself be taken in by a con-man. That's why fraud is so seldom reported by it's victims. But we're at a point where one can no-longer say, "I did not know that people would die if I did not stop the war". PEOPLE WILL DIE IF YOU DO NOT STOP THE WAR. So stop it, and keep those people alive. Or do not stop it, and let them die. It is your choice. It is your soul.

farglebargle -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/4/2007 9:46:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sternhand4 I was initially pissed to read your comment, but after reading your profile I can see where you would like this to happen. As its your desire to wear a burka, and serve under foreign control please let me know how I can help you arrange a departure to the middle east for you. I think you'll find when under islamic law a new respect for this country. They appear to be a highly tolerent people and very understanding of alternate lifestyles. S Are you seriously suggesting that admitting we were conned into invading Iraq by Bush and getting our troops out alive would result in anyone in the United States losing any freedom and liberty, excepting those being spied on and being tortured in secret prisons, of course? Talk about reducto-ye-olde-absurdum. Look, when we see islamo-fascists actually THREATENING us, we'll take them out. Otherwise, shouldn't you be worried about getting the kids out of Iraq alive, rather then getting them killed? Because that is were we are these days. You're either for getting the troops home, alive, now, or you're for more dead troops. There is no middle ground.

MzMia -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/4/2007 9:47:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle You want more Americans to die. Pretty inflammatory statement, Fargle. Maybe pop over to the 'Health and Safety' forum and do some reading on large scale insertions..... Accept the results of YOUR choices. If you don't want the troops home NOW, then MORE WILL DIE. Those deaths are not MY moral responsibility, they are yours. What will you say at the Pearly Gates? "I was ashamed to have been fooled by Bush's lies, that Iraq was a threat to the United States, that we had to act immediately, or next time NY would be nuked"? Will that be sufficient to offset your moral responsibility for the dead? quote: Same logic; You want millions of already poverty stricken people to die a slow death from starvation when we start converting cropland from food to hemp for bio-diesel. That's ok, might drop the price of an 1/8th a little bit huh? Look, I understand that it's painful to be confronted with the cold, hard reality of ones involvement in the needless deaths of thousands. It's hard to admit you let yourself be taken in by a con-man. That's why fraud is so seldom reported by it's victims. But we're at a point where one can no-longer say, "I did not know that people would die if I did not stop the war". PEOPLE WILL DIE IF YOU DO NOT STOP THE WAR. So stop it, and keep those people alive. Or do not stop it, and let them die. It is your choice. It is your soul. I so agree fargle, I have been saying for years, many rather have more people die than admit we made a BIG mistake in the Middle East. I don't see how we are going to win, by sending 50,000 more troops when we clearly need about 500,000 to go over there. When will this madness end? At what point do you say, BIG MISTAKE HERE?

farglebargle -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/4/2007 9:53:27 PM)
I think that the madness will never end. And while we accept it as an integral part of existence, we must also work to minimize the chaos, disruption, and death it brings. When one hears on the radio "In Iraq, 4 servicemen died this morning", it really says, "BECAUSE YOU DID NOT BRING THEM HOME YESTERDAY, In Iraq, 4 servicemen died this morning". And a Namaste to you, too...

Thadius -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/4/2007 9:58:42 PM)
Ello again Fargle, I am far from tossing away the honesty of that if we continue the war, more men and women will die. I also support that position. When I enlisted, I knew there was a possibility that it could happen (obviously I made it through my enlistment). The men and women that have enlisted or been commissioned over the past 4 years know up front that they are going to be going over to the sandbox, and with that it carries the chance of not coming home alive. Yet these brave young folks continue to enlist, and reenlist. To marginalize their sacrifices with rhetoric is tasteless at best. While I respect your right to your opinion, being intellectually dishonest about what is going on does it no justice. I understand you do not like Bush, his policies, or his cronies; but this war started before he was in office. Hell, Clinton would have done more on the front if he wasn't accused of "Wag the Dog". We have lost over 3000 men and women to this war, which by all estimates of what was expected is very low. I would suggest it is the lowest number of lives lost over a 5 year war in the history of the country. The estimated losses for Desert Storm were from 50k and up. Thank God those numbers weren't seen. I wish you well, Thadius

farglebargle -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/4/2007 11:20:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Ello again Fargle, While I respect your right to your opinion, being intellectually dishonest about what is going on does it no justice. I understand you do not like Bush, his policies, or his cronies; but this war started before he was in office. Hell, Clinton would have done more on the front if he wasn't accused of "Wag the Dog". Get over your partisan bullshit. It's time to grow up. This is about: A) You want our kids home alive, today. or B) You want more of our kids dead tomorrow. It goes beyond the "Soldiers Sacrifice" rhetoric. This is much more important. Making that sacrifice is what soldiers are trained and expected to do. DECIDING WHEN THAT SACRIFICE IS WORTHWHILE AND JUSTIFIED is our responsibility. And in Iraq, IT NEVER WAS. So decide, for as if your immortal soul rested on your decision. So decide, as if the lives of our troops rest on your decision. What is acceptable to you: Home alive today, or dead in iraq tomorrow? quote: We have lost over 3000 men and women to this war. I notice you didn't say "Our Troops", but "men and women", as if the hundreds of thousand of dead Iraqis don't count. perhaps I read too much into it. quote: , which by all estimates of what was expected is very low. I remember as part of the fraud, Cheney saying we would be greeted with flowers. ( WHERE ARE THE FUCKING FLOWERS, DICK? THESE IEDs ARE GETTING TIRESOME ) By the estimate of Dick Cheney, the casualties are very high. Why the discrepencies between your statement and Dick Cheneys?

MistressCamille -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/5/2007 12:20:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I think that the madness will never end. And while we accept it as an integral part of existence, we must also work to minimize the chaos, disruption, and death it brings. When one hears on the radio "In Iraq, 4 servicemen died this morning", it really says, "BECAUSE YOU DID NOT BRING THEM HOME YESTERDAY, In Iraq, 4 servicemen died this morning". And a Namaste to you, too... Yay farglebargle! I'm totally there with ya man!

sleazy -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/5/2007 3:40:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Personally, I don't give a shit what crosses Iraq's border because THEY ARE NOT A THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES. I hate to point a couple of painfully obvious points, but firstly there is this invention called mass international transport, and there are an awful lot of people in that corner of the world would just love to see US citizens hurt. Wyrdrich mentioned the IRAN border, not Iraq, killing insurgents, gangsters, terrorists, fundamentalists or whatever you wish to label them as they cross the border and before they get as far as US encampents is a damn good way of saving US citizens, like or not those guys over there in uniform are citizens too.

sleazy -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/5/2007 3:53:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I notice you didn't say "Our Troops", but "men and women", as if the hundreds of thousand of dead Iraqis don't count. perhaps I read too much into it. How many Iraqis would die if the US packed up and went home today? I am willing to bet a hell of a lot more than have died to date. No moral obligation there then? Just pull out and let them all bicker amongst themselves? Let us highly paid mercenaries take over? You really want to see the worlds first truly corporate nation? Such a nation really would bring the US down fast and hard. Ever considered that the reasons so many independent contractors are over there? Allow me to offer a little insight, the left wings of various countries have strangled their military, not enough and the wrong kind of training and equipment, war has not really been nation v nation since 1945, it has been about small groups in the forests, mountains, deserts and jungles etc, but too many politicians (and senior military men who have to be political) have refused to learn the lessons of the last 60 years. If the leftists would just "take the chain off the big dawg" this would all be over much quicker and with less overall loss of life all round.

meatcleaver -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/5/2007 5:10:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy If the leftists would just "take the chain off the big dawg" this would all be over much quicker and with less overall loss of life all round. You think genocide would solve the problem in Iraq then?

farglebargle -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/5/2007 5:55:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Personally, I don't give a shit what crosses Iraq's border because THEY ARE NOT A THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES. I hate to point a couple of painfully obvious points, but firstly there is this invention called mass international transport, and there are an awful lot of people in that corner of the world would just love to see US citizens hurt. The price of Freedom and Liberty is ACCEPTING the risks of OTHER PEOPLE having Freedom and Liberty. The only question then is, ARE WE BRAVE TO ACCEPT THAT RISK? I AM brave enough to accept that risk. Given your statement, perhaps you need to consider your own situation. "Wyrdrich mentioned the IRAN border, not Iraq, killing insurgents, gangsters, terrorists, fundamentalists or whatever you wish to label them as they cross the border and before they get as far as US encampents is a damn good way of saving US citizens, like or not those guys over there in uniform are citizens too." Bullshit. Securing the IRAQ border ( seeing as we can lawfully do NOTHING to Iran ) is all that Bush could hope for, and considering that the US borders haven't been secured by Bush, what do you honestly believe the chances of Bush securing the Iraqi borders is? Zero. So why pretend you can build a strategy around something with a Zero chance? The first step in getting better is ADMITTING YOU HAVE A PROBLEM.

farglebargle -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/5/2007 6:02:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I notice you didn't say "Our Troops", but "men and women", as if the hundreds of thousand of dead Iraqis don't count. perhaps I read too much into it. How many Iraqis would die if the US packed up and went home today? Since you didn't care about the 250,000 Dead Iraqis BEFORE the successful invasion and failed occupation, why pretend you care now? quote: I am willing to bet a hell of a lot more than have died to date. No moral obligation there then? Not really. I opposed the war the entire time, from Bush's unlawful preparation without Congressional notice or funding in 2001 through today. It's the people who PUT THE PEOPLE IN IRAQ who have the moral obligation. And why would you believe KILLING MORE PEOPLE in any way satisfies your Moral Obligation to either Yourself or God? quote: Just pull out and let them all bicker amongst themselves? Sure. They're bickering among themselves right now, but the only difference is our kids are used for target practice. Here's a news flash for you. IRAQ IS NOT THE 51ST STATE. No-one who REALLY understands the Constitution supports the war in Iraq. quote: Let us highly paid mercenaries take over? You really want to see the worlds first truly corporate nation? Such a nation really would bring the US down fast and hard. You know, that's just irrationally paranoid. I'm not a mental health professional, but consider discussing your issue with someone. quote: Ever considered that the reasons so many independent contractors are over there? We pay them? What did we throw away in Iraq? 300 Billion? Could have fed a lot of hungry children with that money.

pantera -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/5/2007 6:14:10 AM)
So, why are we talking about this traitor chick again?

Marc2b -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/5/2007 6:33:04 AM)
Jane Fonda and all the left-over, bong-hitting, Marx-loving, 60's peace-niks should get on their knees and thank President Bush. What a gift he has given them. One last hurrah before they fade away. The Iraq war has got to be like a giant high school reunion for them. They get to meet with all their old buddies (those who are still alive or who's brains aren't addled from all that LSD) and once again shout silly slogans and act all smug and superior - just like the good old days!

thompsonx -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/5/2007 6:45:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pantera So, why are we talking about this traitor chick again? pantera: Traitor chick??? I am curious how she can be a traitor. She was exercising her first ammendment right. We had not declared war on Viet Nam. We were illegally in their country killing their people. Is the first ammendment only for those who agree with you. thompson

NorthernGent -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/5/2007 6:46:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy How many Iraqis would die if the US packed up and went home today? I am willing to bet a hell of a lot more than have died to date. It's open to debate. On the other hand, it is a fact that Iraq descended into chaos after US and British troops landed on their doorstep. Can it be any worse if the occupying forces leave? Again, it's all ifs and buts. In terms of the British Army, they are there because the public were misinformed. The wise move would be to concentrate on the certainties and accept that the British Army should not be anywhere near the place. war has not really been nation v nation since 1945, it has been about small groups in the forests, mountains, deserts and jungles etc, I'm thinking "incorrect" (more than mere technicalities). Do you mean in the world or in Western Europe?

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0390625