NationStates Jolt Archive

Corneliu is always on the side of the Bush Administration.

Actually this is a false statement. Iam not always on the side of the Administration.

Actually this is a false statement. Iam not always on the side of the Administration.

Would you like to give us one example of a time when you weren't?

Would you like to give us one example of a time when you weren't?

I'm against giving Amnesty to the Illegal immigrants who are in this country and Bush is for that.

Believe what you will. I have met generals and generals are way to political. We do not need political generals, we need fighting generals.
It's rather frustrating sitting here, watching you ignore 90% of the points that are made to you.

I'm against giving Amnesty to the Illegal immigrants who are in this country and Bush is for that.
Everyone has a token issue.

Again, believe what you will. There is no law about me having to answer any questions. You may think you are right but who is really ever right?

The truth is a three edged sword. There is your side, My side, and the truth is in the middle. No one is ever 100% right.

I hate to break it to you Corny old chap but this is a debating forum. Sitting smugly in your corner and saying "Yes I have the answers but I'm not going to tell you" is NOT an example of debating.

I'd advise anyone still hoping to get any kind of intelligent debate out of this thread I'd advise them to give up, Corny has developed his immunity to debate, logic, facts and reasoning over many years. If the Bush administration was to nuke Arizona Corny would be the first to stand up and say "Well, it's not like we needed all fifity states is it?"

In light of your having posted repeatedly without acknowledging the following,
I will hearby consider you in de facto consession that you have no defense against the claims of these generals. Feel free to make a defense at any time. Until such time...

You are correct. You don't have to answer a single question. However, a failure to defend you assertions is a de facto admission that they are undefendable, and thus a consession.

In that light, can you please respond to this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by
So:
a) the generals can't tell rummy he's wrong to his face while on active duty because they'll loose their jobs or otherwise get shafted (a la Shinseki)
b) they can't say tell he's wrong in the press while on active duty because they'll loose their jobs or otherwise get shafted
c) they can't say rummy's wrong at all once they retire, because they forget everything they knew, even though they were involved in the planning and/or were on the ground in Iraq
d) and the press should keep after them to run the war correctly when rummy's behind the bad decisions because he over ruled their advice

WTF? You sure about all that?

Yes this is a debating forum.

1) Rumsfield has made mistakes. Some pretty bad ones too. However, I do not think he should resign. He is also the 2nd most important in the chain of command.

2) The President has made mistakes. He is only human.

3) I think everyone here just needs to calm down and stop getting upity over every little thing.

And Daisraeli? those are not questions at all.

I'd advise anyone still hoping to get any kind of intelligent debate out of this thread I'd advise them to give up, Corny has developed his immunity to debate, logic, facts and reasoning over many years. If the Bush administration was to nuke Arizona Corny would be the first to stand up and say "Well, it's not like we needed all fifity states is it?"

And yet another false statement. Unlike some people here, I know when a debate becomes hopeless because people will believe whatever they want to believe. There is no point in arguing with people who fail to recognize the other side of a debate.

There is no point in arguing with people who fail to recognize the other side of a debate.

Pot meet Kettle. You can talk about others not recognising the other side when you stop failing to do so.

Pot meet Kettle. You can talk about others not recognising the other side when you stop failing to do so.

I do recognize the other side of the debate. Hence why I said it was their opinion. Just like what I state is my opinion.

I do recognize the other side of the debate. Hence why I said it was their opinion. Just like what I state is my opinion.


Have you joined a cult and gone a bit funny?

Have you joined a cult and gone a bit funny?

eh?

eh?

I mean recently. I've been reading through this thread and it seems like you've lost it a bit.

I mean recently. I've been reading through this thread and it seems like you've lost it a bit.

eh? I'm sorry but now I'm not comprehending. I haven't lost anything. Well maybe a few pounds from all the walking I do :D

The truth is a three edged sword. There is your side, My side, and the truth is in the middle. No one is ever 100% right.
Oh, so the truth is a three-edged swords - it doesn't exist.

Oh, so the truth is a three-edged swords - it doesn't exist.

How does that compute?

I do recognize the other side of the debate. Hence why I said it was their opinion. Just like what I state is my opinion.

You certainly haven't responded to this, despite multiple requests to do so:

So:
a) the generals can't tell rummy he's wrong to his face while on active duty because they'll loose their jobs or otherwise get shafted (a la Shinseki)
b) they can't say tell he's wrong in the press while on active duty because they'll loose their jobs or otherwise get shafted
c) they can't say rummy's wrong at all once they retire, because they forget everything they knew, even though they were involved in the planning and/or were on the ground in Iraq
d) and the press should keep after them to run the war correctly when rummy's behind the bad decisions because he over ruled their advice

WTF? You sure about all that?

As I have said twice now, if you aren't going to defend this position you have taken, I will consider you to have conceeded that you are wrong.

You certainly haven't responded to this, despite multiple requests to do so:


As I have said twice now, if you aren't going to defend this position you have taken, I will consider you to have conceeded that you are wrong.

Go ahead. I honestly do not care.

Show me in the rule book where carpet bombing is illegal? Under the Rules of War, there are 3 buildings you don't hit. Religious Establishments, Hospitals, and Schools unless these buildings are being used by your enemy to shoot at you from.
Are they the same rules that are in God's rule book?

As for murdering Prisoners of War, illegal combatants are not eligible for protection under the Geneva Conventions. The only way they are eligible is if they are part of a national military army or a militia with insignia somewhere visible on your body.
Whether they are in the rule book or not, if the Shrub declares certain individuals as "illegal combatants", then it is okay to "murder" them if you capture them? Can you show me where this is legal in God's rule book?

Another scenario....a couple of hundred US soldiers are captured by the insurgency in Iraq, and the insurgents dub the prisoners as "illegal combatants", then by your rules, it is okay for the insurgents to "murder" them?

Are they the same rules that are in God's rule book?

Show me in the rule book where carpet bombing is illegal!

Whether they are in the rule book or not, if the Shrub declares certain individuals as "illegal combatants", then it is okay to "murder" them if you capture them? Can you show me where this is legal in God's rule book?

I'll follow the Geneva Conventions if they fit under it.

Another scenario....a couple of hundred US soldiers are captured by the insurgency in Iraq, and the insurgents dub the prisoners as "illegal combatants", then by your rules, it is okay for the insurgents to "murder" them?

They do that anyway. We already know that the terrorists (and most of them are terrorists these days) don't play by the rules of the Geneva Conventions.

Go ahead. I honestly do not care.

:eek: SHOCK AND HORROR!!!! I do believe that's the first time I've ever seen you conceed defeat. Congratulations.

:eek: SHOCK AND HORROR!!!! I do believe that's the first time I've ever seen you conceed defeat. Congratulations.

I didn't conceed defeat. I just gave you permission to consider it. Vast difference.

I didn't conceed defeat. I just gave you permission to consider it. Vast difference.

By taking a contradictory position and refusing to clarify or explain it, you certainly did.

He should have resigned/been forced out/shot two days after he entered his position.

I didn't conceed defeat. I just gave you permission to consider it. Vast difference.

You forfeited. You conceded. Which is the same as a defeat. Owned yet again.

Show me in the rule book where carpet bombing is illegal!
You choose army rule books over God's rule book? :eek:

Carpet or Area Bombing (http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/carpet-area-bomb.html)

Indiscriminate Attack (http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/indiscriminate-attack.html)

Iraq: A Criminal Process
Carpet bombing, cluster bombs and napalm against Iraqi civilians (http://www.uruknet.info/?p=18211)

Don't post here that you want to be a humble servant of God, while you openly support ungodly practices such as carpet bombing and murdering of prisoners of war.

As for murdering Prisoners of War, illegal combatants are not eligible for protection under the Geneva Conventions. The only way they are eligible is if they are part of a national military army or a militia with insignia somewhere visible on your body.

Please cite that portion of the Geneva Conventions that says you can murder anyone that is not "part of a national military army or a militia with insignia somewhere visible on your body."

Whether they are in the rule book or not, if the Shrub declares certain individuals as "illegal combatants", then it is okay to "murder" them if you capture them? Can you show me where this is legal in God's rule book?

I'll follow the Geneva Conventions if they fit under it.


The Geneva Conventions now amend the Bible?

:eek: SHOCK AND HORROR!!!! I do believe that's the first time I've ever seen you conceed defeat. Congratulations.
Well done Daistallia 2104!! Many times, he just kinda slips out the back door.

Well done Daistallia 2104!! Many times, he just kinda slips out the back door.

Exactly. That's why it was so shocking. I'm tempted to put up a thread for it, but I think the mods would classify that as "gloating".

Exactly. That's why it was so shocking. I'm tempted to put up a thread for it, but I think the mods would classify that as "gloating".
I am sure they would, but if you could get away with it, the thread would be jammed with responses. :)

I am sure they would, but if you could get away with it, the thread would be jammed with responses. :)
Hear, hear. Take spotty down a peg or three.

Exactly. That's why it was so shocking. I'm tempted to put up a thread for it, but I think the mods would classify that as "gloating".

Good lad. Pin him down and go in with steel showing....

1) School internet here for some reason that I have yet to fathom, prevents me from posting during certain hours. I cannot explain this because I really do not know the answers and I doubt the tech people know how to fix it. Ironically, I have no trouble when I'm using the wireless function somewhere else on campus.

2) I also have a life here at school.

3) I also work here at school.

and 4) I had an appointment to talk to someone last night as well. Add these things up and it don't leave much time for posting.

Not to mention I've been gearing myself up for finals that are coming up in a couple of weeks.

And by his excuses shall ye know him.....it was "church" the last time....

The Geneva Conventions now amend the Bible?

"Yea, Verily, Thou shalt not follow sensible international law and save lives, or thou shalt be struck down with a very nasty plague. Possibly spots. Maybe a few adders as well" Bush, 1:1

It's right at the back - maybe your bible had a page missing? It's just above the bit that announces 'Bible II: Revenge of Jesus' coming out soon at all good bookstores.

Please cite that portion of the Geneva Conventions that says you can murder anyone that is not "part of a national military army or a militia with insignia somewhere visible on your body."

I see people around here don't read anymore.

*quote*

Now do you have non-bias sources as well as the articles listed here with who ratified it?

The Geneva Conventions now amend the Bible?

No but the Geneva Conventions cover warfare. :rolleyes:

Do not mock me Cat-Tribe.

And by his excuses shall ye know him.....it was "church" the last time....

So I should be here 24 hours a day/7 Days a week/365 days a year without getting on with my personal life? There is more to life than Nationstates.

Those of you who are mocking my faith in the Good Lord Almighty, you are forgiven if you confess your sins to the Lord.

emmmm...Why? (apart from your lack of a sense of humour, that is)

So I should be here 24 hours a day/7 Days a week/365 days a year without getting on with my personal life? There is more to life than Nationstates.

Nope, its the way you abandon threads and slink off, ne'er to return to them. After you've been cornered, of course. And yes, you should get on with your personal life. Road work will greatly prepare you for the rigours of basic training, I believe.

Nope, its the way you abandon threads and slink off, ne'er to return to them. After you've been cornered, of course. And yes, you should get on with your personal life. Road work will greatly prepare you for the rigours of basic training, I believe.

Oh puhlease.

Those of you who are mocking my faith in the Good Lord Almighty, you are forgiven if you confess your sins to the Lord.
Don't mock my lack of religion. Or I might bomb you. Or sue you.

Or change my citizenship and join your military.

Those of you who are mocking my faith in the Good Lord Almighty, you are forgiven if you confess your sins to the Lord.

Shut up. I'm more religious than you. You're just trolling.

Now do you have non-bias sources as well as the articles listed here with who ratified it?
You snipped the post, so how the hell am I supposed to know what you are asking for?

Corny, I'm curious. Why didn't you just answer the questions instead of avoiding them page after page?
If you have so little time, it surely would have been saving you a lot of time if you just answered them.

..or do what most of us do and just go off and come back to it -time permitting- the next day.....

Those of you who are mocking my faith in the Good Lord Almighty, you are forgiven if you confess your sins to the Lord.
You are the one making a mockery of your faith in God, by calling people cowards, by suggesting that you would have carpet bombed Iraq and that you would execute a POW by putting a bullet in the BACK of his skull.

I am not judging you, I am just pointing out the errors of your ways. Your posts do not reflect any sense of humility for God's will, and if anything, it appears that you are defiant of God's moral code.

Shut up. I'm more religious than you. You're just trolling.

Pride is unbecoming of you. A religious person should not be prideful.

And welcome to some more news:

Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste says he is calling for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation because he believes the defense secretary violated the principles of war planning when deciding to invade Iraq, and as a leader he needs to be accountable for that action.

"We went to war with a flawed war plan," Batiste told "Good Morning America." "We certainly had the troops necessary to win the fight to take down Saddam Hussein, but we in no way considered the hard work to win the peace. There were 10 years of good, deliberate war planning that was essentially ignored."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1842182&page=1

I hope ABC isn't too biased.

You are the one making a mockery of your faith in God, by calling people cowards, by suggesting that you would have carpet bombed Iraq and that you would execute a POW by putting a bullet in the BACK of his skull.

:rolleyes:

I am not judging you, I am just pointing out the errors of your ways. Your posts do not reflect any sense of humility for God's will, and if anything, it appears that you are defiant of God's moral code.

And yet I see nothing in the bible that says that war is immoral. Actually, it says that war and rumors of war are necessary.

:rolleyes:



And yet I see nothing in the bible that says that war is immoral. Actually, it says that war and rumors of war are necessary.
Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. "But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (NAS, Romans 12:17-21)

Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. "But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (NAS, Romans 12:17-21)

That is what Romans says, however how does that go into the realm of international politics when everyone, and I mean everyone, is fighting? Besides, I do not believe, and the Lord correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that these verses fit into politics but rather through individuals.

As to overcome evil with good, war is sometimes necessary to do just that.

Pride is unbecoming of you. A religious person should not be prideful.

Trolling is unbecoming on you. You mock my religion with this little false holier-than-thou routine.

Trolling is unbecoming on you. You mock my religion with this little false holier-than-thou routine.

I mock no religion for mocking religion is a sin.

I mock no religion for mocking religion is a sin.

You mock all religion right now. Your little pretend religious routine is an afront to everyone who actually is religious.

That is what Romans says, however how does that go into the realm of international politics when everyone, and I mean everyone, is fighting? Besides, I do not believe, and the Lord correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that these verses fit into politics but rather through individuals.

As to overcome evil with good, war is sometimes necessary to do just that.
Can you read? You were just proven wrong.

You mock all religion right now. Your little pretend religious routine is an afront to everyone who actually is religious.

How do you know it is pretend? You do not know that it is pretend. You do not know me nor do you know my faith in the Lord God of Heaven.

How do you know it is pretend? You do not know that it is pretend. You do not know me nor do you know my faith in the Lord God of Heaven.

I know it is pretend. You were never previously this outspoken about your religion, and now you are a caricature of faith.

Can you read? You were just proven wrong.

Yes I can read. I'm reading the Book of Mark right now. I already completed the book of Matthew.

Matthew 24:6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.

I know it is pretend. You were never previously this outspoken about your religion, and now you are a caricature of faith.

I have rededicated my life to the Lord and have pledged to him that I will serve him faithfully. So no. You do not know its pretend nor do you know my faith. For I tell you the truth that my faith is indeed real as is my religion.

And welcome to some more news:

Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste says he is calling for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation because he believes the defense secretary violated the principles of war planning when deciding to invade Iraq, and as a leader he needs to be accountable for that action.

"We went to war with a flawed war plan," Batiste told "Good Morning America." "We certainly had the troops necessary to win the fight to take down Saddam Hussein, but we in no way considered the hard work to win the peace. There were 10 years of good, deliberate war planning that was essentially ignored."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1842182&page=1

I hope ABC isn't too biased.


Yep. And he was the commander on the 1st Inf. Div. in Iraq 2004-5.

And I'll note that almost every single one of these generals was a combat veteran. Unlike chicken-hawk Rumsfeld and his chicken-hawk defender Corneliu.

To sum up this thread: Corneliu is dead, and we're here to watch his corpse decompose.

...

And it's still decomposing. Does this guy ever roll over and admit defeat?

Yep. And he was the commander on the 1st Inf. Div. in Iraq 2004-5.

And I'll note that almost every single one of these generals was a combat veteran. Unlike chicken-hawk Rumsfeld and his chicken-hawk defender Corneliu.

I'm not a chicken hawk by any stretches of the imagination.

And it's still decomposing. Does this guy ever roll over and admit defeat?

He did above. He turned around and tried to deny it, but he did.

I'm not a chicken hawk by any stretches of the imagination.

It's an easy mistake to make; you do seem to have been barbequed.

It's an easy mistake to make; you do seem to have been barbequed.

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:
Truth's a bitch, innit?

I'm not a chicken hawk by any stretches of the imagination.

Oh really? Last time it was brought up, you were trying to weasel out of your not serving on the grounds of an urban legend....

And more on the latest:

Retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004 and 2005, is calling on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign, joining three other retired U.S. generals who've recently made similar public calls.


You know, it speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defense.

(W)hen decisions are made without taking into account sound military recommendations, sound military decision making, sound planning, then we're bound to make mistakes. When we violate the principles of war with mass and unity of command and unity of effort, we do that at our own peril.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/13/batiste/

Big smile all those who have served their country :)

Funny how it's us guys saying this whole thing has gone wrong and the guys with no experience defend it.

Big smile all those who have served their country :)

Funny how it's us guys saying this whole thing has gone wrong and the guys with no experience defend it.

Funny, I hear my dad defend the Iraq War every day. He also served in the area. My dad's base also defends it and many soldiers I talk to also defend it. MMM..

Funny, I hear my dad defend the Iraq War every day. He also served in the area. My dad's base also defends it and many soldiers I talk to also defend it. MMM..

And what about you personally? Or do we have to hear your little fairy tale again?

Funny, I hear my dad defend the Iraq War every day. He also served in the area. My dad's base also defends it and many soldiers I talk to also defend it. MMM..

You usually find that people who have killed in war don't like to see..... killing in war, because when we go to sleep at nights we still see the faces. I have a consience.

And I think your missing my point. Most people in the military and ex-military people are, by default of their career choice, pro-war. However, the point here is that most military people are criticizing the conduct of the war. Whilst your dad may defend the war (that is his free right to do so) does he defend the current administrations conduct of the war and their war aims?

And what about you personally? Or do we have to hear your little fairy tale again?

What about me? Your right, I haven't been over there. However, I don't rely mostly on the TV nor the internet to get my news coverage. The press follows one addage, if it bleeds it leads.

Also, the press tends to be more anti-war. Probably stemming from Vietnam so its understandable. However, they were favorable to the 1st Gulf War. Why? Two things! 1) It was short and 2) hardly any casualties.

In this war, they were supportive till the casualties started to come in. Then they turned decidedly against it. I do not trust the news. I do trust those who were embedded with the soldiers and give them kudos for trying to get the good stories out there. Its a shame that the press is so bent on blood that they can't see the good stories that are there.

As for me, if it is God's will for me to go to Iraq then I will go to Iraq. Who am I to tell the Lord no? Those that did still wound up going anyway. I am letting the Lord guide me throughout my days. He will let me know if I should go or not. Not you, not anyone on this board, not the President of the United States nor Congress.

Yep. And he was the commander on the 1st Inf. Div. in Iraq 2004-5.

And I'll note that almost every single one of these generals was a combat veteran. Unlike chicken-hawk Rumsfeld and his chicken-hawk defender Corneliu.
Sorry, but i find it hard to call a general a combat veteran. The veterans are the ones out in the field carrying out their mission. They're just sitting behind the frontlines coordinating it all(not that that isn't essential)

Big smile all those who have served their country :)

Funny how it's us guys saying this whole thing has gone wrong and the guys with no experience defend it.
When did ya serve?

Sorry, but i find it hard to call a general a combat veteran. The veterans are the ones out in the field carrying out their mission. They're just sitting behind the frontlines coordinating it all(not that that isn't essential)

And funnily enough they are normally the ones who see the way that wars are organised and carried out from a strategic level. I would have thought that that made them far more qualified to comment on the conduct of the war.

What about me? Your right, I haven't been over there. However, I don't rely mostly on the TV nor the internet to get my news coverage. The press follows one addage, if it bleeds it leads.

Also, the press tends to be more anti-war. Probably stemming from Vietnam so its understandable. However, they were favorable to the 1st Gulf War. Why? Two things! 1) It was short and 2) hardly any casualties.

In this war, they were supportive till the casualties started to come in. Then they turned decidedly against it. I do not trust the news. I do trust those who were embedded with the soldiers and give them kudos for trying to get the good stories out there. Its a shame that the press is so bent on blood that they can't see the good stories that are there.

As for me, if it is God's will for me to go to Iraq then I will go to Iraq. Who am I to tell the Lord no? Those that did still wound up going anyway. I am letting the Lord guide me throughout my days. He will let me know if I should go or not. Not you, not anyone on this board, not the President of the United States nor Congress.


Hmmm... looks like you've given up trying to defend your non-service on the fairy tale urban legend grounds you used to try and pass off on people - that the army wouldn't take you 'cause daddy was serving too....

When did ya serve?

6 years Royal Navy - 1987-1993 - didn't see any combat, just took a couple of shots at Columbian drug runners whilst posted aboard the carribean guard ship.

5 years Legion Etranger de France - 1994-1999 - saw plenty

And funnily enough they are normally the ones who see the way that wars are organised and carried out from a strategic level. I would have thought that that made them far more qualified to comment on the conduct of the war.
A commander of a division wouldn't be invovled in the highest levels of the planning where rumsfeld was invovled. A commander of a division also wouldn't readily see the tactical moves made by our smaller elements. So basically, that is the least qualified kind of person to be making these kind of comments.

6 years Royal Navy - 1987-1993 - didn't see any combat, just took a couple of shots at Columbian drug runners whilst posted aboard the carribean guard ship.

5 years Legion Etranger de France - 1994-1999 - saw plenty
What was ur MOS or whatever u foreigners call it.;)

A commander of a division wouldn't be invovled in the highest levels of the planning where rumsfeld was invovled. A commander of a division also wouldn't readily see the tactical moves made by our smaller elements. So basically, that is the least qualified kind of person to be making these kind of comments.

So your implying Generals do nothing? They are not fit to comment on war on a strategic level because their not high enough, yet their also not qualified to comment on war on a tactical level because their not low enough?

What was ur MOS or whatever u foreigners call it.;)

Sorry for my ignorance, I don't understand the term MOS. Is that rank or role?

I'm not a chicken hawk by any stretches of the imagination.
Chickenhawk is an epithet used in United States politics to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who votes for war, supports war, commands a war, or develops war policy, but has not personally served in the military. Generally, it is not a label applied to essentially "dovish" leaders who support defensive wars, "humanitarian interventions," or UN operations.

So your implying Generals do nothing? They are not fit to comment on war on a strategic level because their not high enough, yet their also not qualified to comment on war on a tactical level because their not low enough?
Not all generals. The particular one we were talking of.

Sorry for my ignorance, I don't understand the term MOS. Is that rank or role?
role

Sorry, but i find it hard to call a general a combat veteran. The veterans are the ones out in the field carrying out their mission. They're just sitting behind the frontlines coordinating it all(not that that isn't essential)

Shinseki, Riggs, Zinni and many other critics of Rumsfield are career military going back to platoon leader level combat in Vietnam. Rummy got 5 (?) defferments. And Corneliu has, in the past, claimed he isn not allowed to serve on the basis that his parents are military.

role

In the navy I was a steward / firefighter, in the Legion I was a paratrooper.

The Cat-Tribe
Please cite that portion of the Geneva Conventions that says you can murder anyone that is not "part of a national military army or a militia with insignia somewhere visible on your bodyI see people around here don't read anymore.

Nice try. Having read the Conventions, I doubt you can find support for your wild assertions.

No but the Geneva Conventions cover warfare. :rolleyes:

Do not mock me Cat-Tribe.

If something is against Christian values, it matters not if it is allowed by the Geneva Conventions.

Moreover, you refuse to defend your interpretation of Geneva Conventions.

Pointing out the flaws in your position is not mocking you -- although the are so egregious it may seem like it.

Those of you who are mocking my faith in the Good Lord Almighty, you are forgiven if you confess your sins to the Lord.

Doesn't the Bible have some not-so-nice things to say about those who are noisy about how they are holier than others?

I'm not a chicken hawk by any stretches of the imagination.

You're eligible to go, call those that don't want to know cowards....mouth off inanities in the hope people will somehow be hoodwinked into thinking you are correct....if the shoe fits...

You're eligible to go, call those that don't want to know cowards....mouth off inanities in the hope people will somehow be hoodwinked into thinking you are correct....if the shoe fits...
If you didn't serve then shut up

If you didn't serve then shut up

Just because someone didn't serve does not mean that they arn't entitled to an opinion. On any subject. Freedom of speech, remember? I've never worked at McDonalds but I still think their food tastes like shit.

Just because someone didn't serve does not mean that they arn't entitled to an opinion. On any subject. Freedom of speech, remember? I've never worked at McDonalds but I still think their food tastes like shit.
He is denouncing someone for not serving while he has not served. That is wrong.

He is denouncing someone for not serving while he has not served. That is wrong.

No he is not. He is denouncing Corny for giving differing and silly excuses why he cannot serve whilst maintaining that he wants to.

No he is not. He is denouncing Corny for giving differing and silly excuses why he cannot serve whilst maintaining that he wants to.
That is cornys problem, not his. These forums aren't for flaming so either way he's wrong.

That is cornys problem, not his. These forums aren't for flaming so either way he's wrong.

Right, so he is highlighting Corny's hypocrisy. Hes not flaming. So either way hes not wrong.

You're eligible to go, call those that don't want to know cowards....mouth off inanities in the hope people will somehow be hoodwinked into thinking you are correct....if the shoe fits...

Yep. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

He did above. He turned around and tried to deny it, but he did.

"I'm not dead yet!"

Yes I can read. I'm reading the Book of Mark right now. I already completed the book of Matthew.

Matthew 24:6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.
Because you can read and quote from Matthew, does not equate to you actually learning anything?

"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth"

Matthew 5:5

"Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy"

Matthew 5:7

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God"

Matthew 5:9

I don't see in these Beatitudes anything close to your suggestion that carpet bombing Iraq and murdering POW's as being okay by God.

Try reading the Sermon on the Mount by Emmet Fox.

If you didn't serve then shut up

Allow me to clarify - I have not "served". However I don't sit here, not having "served" and call those that won't, don't, or did and no longer wish to, "cowards". Now fuck off with yourself.

Yep. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
It always seems like the people that can afford the glass houses, have all the rocks.

It always seems like the people that can afford the glass houses, have all the rocks.
All the more reason not to throw them, as the chances of getting cut increase proportionally with the number thrown?

Because you can read and quote from Matthew, does not equate to you actually learning anything?

"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth"

Matthew 5:5

"Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy"

Matthew 5:7

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God"

Matthew 5:9

I don't see in these Beatitudes anything close to your suggestion that carpet bombing Iraq and murdering POW's as being okay by God.

Try reading the Sermon on the Mount by Emmet Fox.

Or I can read it in Jesus' own words in the book of Matthew. Since I already have a bible (actually 2 or three with them being at home) I'll just read it there. Your right in that is what Jesus said however as we all know, war is sometimes necessary to combat evil in this world.

Or I can read it in Jesus' own words in the book of Matthew. Since I already have a bible (actually 2 or three with them being at home) I'll just read it there. Your right in that is what Jesus said however as we all know, war is sometimes necessary to combat evil in this world.
Murdering POWs isn't even war.
Carpet bombing Iraq after we invaded them? Necessary? I think you need to explain yourself a bit better here.
Also, you never did get back to me on that query of mine to you, the one you said you'd ask your prof's about.

Or I can read it in Jesus' own words in the book of Matthew. Since I already have a bible (actually 2 or three with them being at home) I'll just read it there. Your right in that is what Jesus said however as we all know, war is sometimes necessary to combat evil in this world.

So Jesus's words don't count because you consider them unrealistic?

And how is mistreating POWs necessary to combat evil?

Murdering POWs isn't even war.

You are indeed correct. Which is why many Japanese were executed after World War II was over.

Also, you never did get back to me on that query of mine to you, the one you said you'd ask your prof's about.

Yea I did actually forget about this. My apologies.

You are indeed correct. Which is why many Japanese were executed after World War II was over.

Ah, you should know my step-father was held with his family in an internment camp for a while. If you could have gotten him to talk while he was alive, he probably would have a few not nice things to say ... although he may still have said nothing, since he enlisted and fought in the Korean War.


Yea I did actually forget about this. My apologies.So am i left waiting still?

So Jesus's words don't count because you consider them unrealistic?

The words of Jesus do count. I favor peace over war. I would love very much for Peace to prevail.

And how is mistreating POWs necessary to combat evil?

That isn't necessary and those that were responsible are being punished.

That isn't necessary and those that were responsible are being punished.

Really? Guantanamo has been shut down and a human rights court has been set up?

Ah, you should know my step-father was held with his family in an internment camp for a while. If you could have gotten him to talk while he was alive, he probably would have a few not nice things to say ... although he may still have said nothing, since he enlisted and fought in the Korean War.

I'm glad he enlisted and served. If he were alive, I'd thank him for his service to this wonderful country.

So am i left waiting still?

I'm emailing him now.

Really? Guantanamo has been shut down and a human rights court has been set up?

:rolleyes:

The words of Jesus do count. I favor peace over war. I would love very much for Peace to prevail.

There cannot be peace without war. There cannot be peace without war. There cannot be war without peace. Peace is war.

There cannot be peace without war. There cannot be peace without war. There cannot be war without peace. Peace is war.
I apologize for being somewhat ignorant in this fashion, but has anyone made a "1984"/"newspeak" smilie yet? It would be a curt response to many a post, indeed.

The words of Jesus do count.
If that is the case, then why do you ignore them?

I favor peace over war. I would love very much for Peace to prevail.
IMHO, you are a warmonger, and a Bush apologist. Besides, your own words betray you:

BBQ Iranians:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10248258&postcount=21

Carpet Bomb Iraq:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9850581&postcount=121

Murder POW's:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9859455&postcount=191

Support Revenge:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10248272&postcount=25

You continue to staunchly support Bush and his War of ERROR that has led to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, and over 2,000 Americans. A war that has devestated that country and has brought them to the brink of civil war.

I don't see these as Christian values whatsoever.

IMHO, you are a warmonger, and a Bush apologist. Besides, your own words betray you:

BBQ Iranians:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10248258&postcount=21

Carpet Bomb Iraq:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9850581&postcount=121

Murder POW's:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9859455&postcount=191

Support Revenge:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10248272&postcount=25

You continue to staunchly support Bush and his War of ERROR that has led to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, and over 2,000 Americans. A war that has devestated that country and has brought them to the brink of civil war.

I don't see these as Christian values whatsoever.

See why I call him Communal Property? You don't need a sound credit history to own him, it's that easy.

See why I call him Communal Property? You don't need a sound credit history to own him, it's that easy.
Well according to the number of posts, I am a Muppet Owner. :D

Me and my muppet!!

Me and my muppet!!
http://www.wellige.com/ulli/images%2Fmuppets_sam.gif

http://www.wellige.com/ulli/images%2Fmuppets_sam.gif
Is that a shot of a chickenhawk muppet?

Well, we had a "choice" of one idiot or the other idiot. ( shrug )

We had a choice between a man who had already shown himself to be unfit for the presidency, and a guy who at worst was equivalent to Bush in 2000. And Texans should have known better in 2000.

That's a clever means to avoid allowing criticism, but has no standing in reality (and makes you look like a complete Bushevik).

Heck, that kind of doublespeak makes him look like a complete Bolshevik

Some parts yes. Other parts no.

The military parts on the ground were handled competently. The political parts and those strategic parts left in the hands of the political elements were handled with Bozoesque incompetence.

I have never encouraged others to kill. However the life of a military person is to destroy his enemy. Lord Jesus was a peacemaker but he also challenged the Pharisees and the law makers of the day.

You shouldn't commit murder, you are right about that, but he says nothing about military conflict.

So how many Pharisees did Jesus kill? (thumbing through my trusty bible)Hmm, looks like a grand total of zero. I've often disagreed with Corneliu, but when did he turn into a nutjob? Maybe he's suffering from sleep deprivation?

The truth is a three edged sword. There is your side, My side, and the truth is in the middle. No one is ever 100% right.
Why would you knowingly take a position (side, if you will) that you know is not the truth? Is standing in solidarity with a fellow Republican really that important?

:eek: SHOCK AND HORROR!!!! I do believe that's the first time I've ever seen you conceed defeat. Congratulations.
It's language like that which makes people so unwilling to ever shift an inch. Talking like that creates a climate where conceding a point (not "defeat") is some ultimate dishonour.

Well done Daistallia 2104!! Many times, he just kinda slips out the back door.
Is this a discussion or a gloating contest?

Those of you who are mocking my faith in the Good Lord Almighty, you are forgiven if you confess your sins to the Lord.
Your beliefs clash with my Catholic-brainwashed mind and ideals of Christianity.

Why would you knowingly take a position (side, if you will) that you know is not the truth? Is standing in solidarity with a fellow Republican really that important?
It is obvious that you do not understand Corny logic?

It's language like that which makes people so unwilling to ever shift an inch. Talking like that creates a climate where conceding a point (not "defeat") is some ultimate dishonour.
I disagree. You obviously have not become embroiled in a long drawn out one sided debate with the Cornman, where you present facts and he disses them with rhetoric? I think that your tag of "ultimate dishonour" is a little bit of a stretch.

Is this a discussion or a gloating contest?
See above.

Your beliefs clash with my Catholic-brainwashed mind and ideals of Christianity.
Since Corny is a Methodist, then perhaps he would not be able to relate with your "Catholic-brainwashed mind", but certainly I do believe that his beliefs clash with the ideals of Christianity.

If that is the case, then why do you ignore them?

I do not ignore the words of Jesus CH. I am also of the mind that once in war, you fight the war.

You continue to staunchly support Bush and his War of ERROR that has led to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, and over 2,000 Americans. A war that has devestated that country and has brought them to the brink of civil war.

I don't see these as Christian values whatsoever.

Ch, I honestly do not care for your opinions however I would gladly die for you to have those opinions. I know others who would die for your right to say it. Would you rather live under a dictatorship that doesn't allow for free religious expression? War is a necessary evil unfortunately. I would love to see peace prevail everywhere. However, that is not human nature. It hasn't been human nature since Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Edan. What is human nature is conflict and we have way to much of that. Most of it in the name of religion :(

The military parts on the ground were handled competently. The political parts and those strategic parts left in the hands of the political elements were handled with Bozoesque incompetence.

Precisely.

So how many Pharisees did Jesus kill? (thumbing through my trusty bible)Hmm, looks like a grand total of zero. I've often disagreed with Corneliu, but when did he turn into a nutjob? Maybe he's suffering from sleep deprivation?

If we're talking about killed in the literal sense none. If you want to go with spiritually killed.....

Your beliefs clash with my Catholic-brainwashed mind and ideals of Christianity.

Yea well i have a news flash for ya. Most of Dad's side of the family is catholic as is my half sister and her family.

If we're talking about killed in the literal sense none. If you want to go with spiritually killed.....
Jesus spiritually killed people?

Jesus spiritually killed people?

Well he did condemn the Pharisees and called them hypocrits and warned the people about what the Pharisees and teachers of law were doing.

Besides, those who do not truly accept accept Jesus will not see the Kingdom of Heaven.

Well he did condemn the Pharisees and called them hypocrits and warned the people about what the Pharisees and teachers of law were doing.

Besides, those who do not truly accept accept Jesus will not see the Kingdom of Heaven.
But this is not something that is done to them. Its something that they chose for themselves. Jesus told them what they were but didn't curse them or somehow make them not accept him. Which is a huge difference.

That is... if you believe in this sort of thing.

Besides, those who do not truly accept accept Jesus will not see the Kingdom of Heaven.

Thats crap. I got it out on DVD a month ago. Not bad. Brendan Gleeson was good.

Well he did condemn the Pharisees and called them hypocrits and warned the people about what the Pharisees and teachers of law were doing.

Besides, those who do not truly accept accept Jesus will not see the Kingdom of Heaven.

It is still quite a stretch from there to "Jesus supports war, carpet bombing, and Guatanamo Bay."

Your God wants a word with you.

It is still quite a stretch from there to "Jesus supports war, carpet bombing, and Guatanamo Bay."

Your God wants a word with you.
You haven't seen Jesus get heated on some punks, then.
http://www.familyguydefined.com/content/multimedia/desktopwallpaper/images/passionofthechrist2-1280x1024.jpg

It is still quite a stretch from there to "Jesus supports war, carpet bombing, and Guatanamo Bay."

Your God wants a word with you.

I talk to the Good Lord each and every day and each and every night. I never said he supported war nor carpet bombing nor Gitmo.

I talk to the Good Lord each and every day and each and every night. I never said he supported war nor carpet bombing nor Gitmo.
So, Jesus wouldn't approve.

I talk to the Good Lord each and every day and each and every night. I never said he supported war nor carpet bombing nor Gitmo.

Perhaps you shouldn't do all the talking and should listen more.

You have been defending those things while claiming to be acting in God's name.

Perhaps you shouldn't do all the talking and should listen more.

You have been defending those things while claiming to be acting in God's name.

Actually I haven't defend it in God's name. Now you are taking things out of context.

Actually I haven't defend it in God's name. Now you are taking things out of context.

So are you admitting Jesus condemns those things?

Glad you've finally seen the light.

I do not ignore the words of Jesus CH.
If you say so....you are the one that has to live with yourself.

I am also of the mind that once in war, you fight the war.
Even though Iraq was an unnecessary war?

Even though you would like to see another one with Iran, even to the point of sick humour, something about BBQing them?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10248258&postcount=21

Ch, I honestly do not care for your opinions
I am only trying to help you back on the path.

however I would gladly die for you to have those opinions.
Somehow, I doubt your sincerity.

I know others who would die for your right to say it.
Many good people gave their lives, or risked their lives to preserve the free world. My father and his three brothers were amongst those willing to pay the ultimate price.

I do not see the war with Iraq as the preservation of the free world. Nor do I see warmongering with Iran and North Korea as beneficial to mankind.

Would you rather live under a dictatorship that doesn't allow for free religious expression?
Perhaps this demonstrates the difference between you and I. God is with me wherever I go, and it doesn't matter what flavour of government that is in power.

War is a necessary evil unfortunately.
Most wars since WW2 have been totally unnecessary. All they have caused is death, destruction, and despair.

I would love to see peace prevail everywhere.
Your posts betray you. I do not see a peace lover in you. I see a warmonger. Sorry but that is my take on the matter.

However, that is not human nature.
Are you suggesting that it is "natural" for humans to crave war, death and destruction? If that is the case then it is overdue for man to progress to the next stage.

It hasn't been human nature since Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Edan.
You are going to blame wars on Adam and Eve? That is certainly a mind boggling stretch.

What is human nature is conflict and we have way to much of that.
I agree, so stop being a part of the problem and start looking for the solution. Don't tell me that you are a peace lover whilst at the same time advocating that the Iranians get BBQ'ed.

Most of it in the name of religion :(
Most war today is about money, and property. They just slap a religious tag on it to make themselves feel better about their evil deeds.

I dont know if these Generals are currently in the states employ but it's only a matter of time until the ones who are begin to join them. The way in which senior politicians have handled the Iraq war has been... questionable at best. They're not even pretending it went or is going well and the generals currently handling the situation on the ground are not going to want to take the blame for it.

If they are in the states employ, then we wouldn't be hearing about it. They have to be retired, free speech is pretty much negated while in the service.

The military parts on the ground were handled competently. The political parts and those strategic parts left in the hands of the political elements were handled with Bozoesque incompetence.
Precisely.

So why do you seem to have a problem admitting you have agreed with the retired generals who are saying the exact same thing?

It's language like that which makes people so unwilling to ever shift an inch. Talking like that creates a climate where conceding a point (not "defeat") is some ultimate dishonour.

Perhapse an explanation is in order.

I sincerly meant that congratulations. Admitting you're wrong is a sign of increased maturity.

Having crossed swords with him several times, he's never admitted he was wrong on any point. When shown that he was demonstrably wrong or being self contradictory (as here), he has a history of refused to acknowledge it, either abandoning the debate or continuing to maintain his position.

I thought he'd reached a point where he was able to do admit he was wrong, or at least modify his position. Further evidence of this is inconclusive. He seems to have at least modified his initial position.