NationStates Jolt Archive

Seems like they're following the rest of the country (http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-brooks5jan05,1,2196274.column?coll=la-news-columns&ctrack=1&cset=true):
BURIED IN THE NEWS last week was one of the most potentially significant stories of recent years. The Military Times released its annual poll of active-duty service members, and the results showed something virtually unprecedented: a one-year decline of 10 percentage points in the number of military personnel identifying themselves as Republicans. In the 2004 poll, the percentage of military respondents who characterized themselves as Republicans stood at 60%. By the end of 2005, that had dropped to 56%. And by the end of 2006, the percentage of military Republicans plummeted to 46%.

The drop in Republican Party identification among active-duty personnel is a sharp reversal of a 30-year trend toward the "Republicanization" of the U.S. military, and it could mark a sea change in the nature of the military — and the nature of public debates about national security issues.

The poll shows that only 35% of military personnel approve of the president's handling of the war, and three-fourths of those polled say that the military is "stretched too thin to be effective." Anecdotal evidence suggests that many career officers also are skeptical of the administration's approach to combating terrorism and unhappy with its undermining of the norms of the Geneva Convention.

The partial de-Republicanization of the military is a hopeful sign — and not just for Democrats. A politicized military presents a threat to democratic ideals of civilian control. Over the last 30 years, the Republicanization of the military also has had a deeply distorting effect on public debates about national security, making it almost impossible to question Republican national security policies without being labeled "anti-military."
I'm glad to see this, and it jibes with my experience with my students who are in the military. They're not buying the old bullshit line that Democrats hate the troops anymore.

Now watch as AC2 goes Corny on us again and tells us how the troops are breaking rules and talking out their asses criticizing Il Douche's handling of Iraq.

This twelve year long abomination called the "Republican Revolution" is finally coming to an end. Thank whatever deity is responsible for this change!

Now all we need is a modern outlook on sexuality with a dabble of getting the hell out of politics

*looks out for flying pigs*

Don't want it to go too far either direction. Neither party is trustworthy and there's no reason for a majority of our forces to like either party.

Now watch as AC2 goes Corny on us again and tells us how the troops are breaking rules and talking out their asses criticizing Il Douche's handling of Iraq.

Do we need popcorn?

The problem that Rove has is that you can only hide stupidity behind slogans for so long. "Freedom is on the march" can sway idiots during an election year when people aren't getting blown up left and right. Eventually even stupid people start to wonder what a slogan has to do with what they see in front of their eyes. I'm not calling people in the military stupid. Studies have shown that they are among the brightest we have. I'm just pointing out that eventually everyone, intellectuals, military, even slack jawed yokels with shot gun racks in the '75 Ford trucks notice that the emporer has no clothes.

Do we need popcorn?

Hell, let's make an entire snack stand!

Don't want it to go too far either direction. Neither party is trustworthy and there's no reason for a majority of our forces to like either party.

Not characterizing yourself as "Republican" doesn't automatically mean characterizing oneself as a "Democrat".

It might mean that the military will be getting fed up with being sent anywhere by any party, and then having the rug pulled out from them by any other party.

This will be the second major US war where this has happened. They were pretty sore about it the last time - the hatred was institutionalized.

See Heinlein's book on what happens when the military gets fed up with the politicians.

Not characterizing yourself as "Republican" doesn't automatically mean characterizing oneself as a "Democrat".

It might mean that the military will be getting fed up with being sent anywhere by any party, and then having the rug pulled out from them by any other party.

This will be the second major US war where this has happened. They were pretty sore about it the last time - the hatred was institutionalized.

See Heinlein's book on what happens when the military gets fed up with the politicians.

Assuming you're talking about Vietnam, then this is different in one major respect--the same poll that shows the military becoming less Republican also shows that they want out of Iraq and think the current administration did a shitty job there. Sounds to me like they'd welcome having the rug pulled out, as long as they were on it when the pulling started.

Assuming you're talking about Vietnam, then this is different in one major respect--the same poll that shows the military becoming less Republican also shows that they want out of Iraq and think the current administration did a shitty job there. Sounds to me like they'd welcome having the rug pulled out, as long as they were on it when the pulling started.

Yeah. You might also mention that Nixon, a Republican, got us out of Vietnam. By the time Carter, the first Dem since Kennedy, got into office it was long over.

It’s to be expected. When the supposed civilian head of the military is devoid of any knowledge in that particular field, and then refuses to acknowledge the advice of those that are, it has to cause some sort of resentment when things begin, or in this case continue, to go badly.

It’s to be expected. When the supposed civilian head of the military is devoid of any knowledge in that particular field, and then refuses to acknowledge the advice of those that are, it has to cause some sort of resentment when things begin, or in this case continue, to go badly.

Aye. Let me tell you this, plenty of eighteen to twenty-four year olds playing Rise of bloody Nations have more strategic sense than Bush, and I can guarentee you that at least on the war front they'd do better than he would if they were in his position.

But, considering what all he's screwed up, that's not saying all that much.

Aye. Let me tell you this, plenty of eighteen to twenty-four year olds playing Rise of bloody Nations have more strategic sense than Bush, and I can guarentee you that at least on the war front they'd do better than he would if they were in his position.

But, considering what all he's screwed up, that's not saying all that much.
Eighteen to twenty four year olds know more about everything than anyone else. They are truly a wasted resource that could end war, poverty, disease, and any number of other maladies. It's a shame that we don't use their talents before they disappear into middle age.

I'm glad to see this, and it jibes with my experience with my students who are in the military. They're not buying the old bullshit line that Democrats hate the troops anymore.

That's most likely because of slipping public educational standars and liberal teachers like yourself. We should privatize our school system and eliminate the teachers who seek to indoctrinate their pupils with their political beliefs, whether they do it intentionally or subconsciously.

That's most likely because of slipping public educational standars and liberal teachers like yourself. We should privatize our school system and eliminate the teachers who seek to indoctrinate their pupils with their political beliefs, whether they do it intentionally or subconsciously.

you're cute. So if it weren't for the "indoctrination" everyone would be republican?

By the way, Nazz, aren't you a professor at a private university?

That's most likely because of slipping public educational standars and liberal teachers like yourself. We should privatize our school system and eliminate the teachers who seek to indoctrinate their pupils with their political beliefs, whether they do it intentionally or subconsciously.
It appears yo' is a victim of slippin' edacation stannards yo'self.

That's most likely because of slipping public educational standars and liberal teachers like yourself. We should privatize our school system and eliminate the teachers who seek to indoctrinate their pupils with their political beliefs, whether they do it intentionally or subconsciously.

I'm pretty sure Jesus is ashamed you're alive.

I'm glad to see this, and it jibes with my experience with my students who are in the military. They're not buying the old bullshit line that Democrats hate the troops anymore.

Maybe the Republican troops just prefer being all gung-ho on militarism when there isn't a war going on...

So if it weren't for the "indoctrination" everyone would be republican?

Not everyone, just those with a strong moral sense.

Not everyone, just those with a strong moral sense.

generally I think "you know what, let's not kill anybody today" to be a strong moral sense. One most republicans seem not to share.

Eighteen to twenty four year olds know more about everything than anyone else. They are truly a wasted resource that could end war, poverty, disease, and any number of other maladies. It's a shame that we don't use their talents before they disappear into middle age.

Okay, fair enough, I was exaggerating. But not by all THAT much, you have to admit. I know you're not stupid, Myrmi. Maybe a little politically biased at times, but definitely not stupid.

generally I think "you know what, let's not kill anybody today" to be a strong moral sense. One most republicans seem not to share.

Killing or otherwise halting a murderer is preferable to allowing him to continue on his bloody rampage. Those who decide to attempt to expunge murderers from our society enjoy a strong moral sense.

That's most likely because of slipping public educational standars and liberal teachers like yourself. We should privatize our school system and eliminate the teachers who seek to indoctrinate their pupils with their political beliefs, whether they do it intentionally or subconsciously.

But our current president is a Republican and he's the stupidest moron to ever crawl the halls of the White House. I mean that sincerely. He really is a comlete shit brain - even Republicans are waking up to the fact that this guy is the worst president in the history of the US. Listen to him speak. He can't open his mouth without sounding like a complete idiot. :confused:

Killing or otherwise halting a murderer is preferable to allowing him to continue on his bloody rampage. Those who decide to attempt to expunge murderers from our society enjoy a strong moral sense.

true, I mean, most republicans are religious, mostly christian, and it's not like the christian religion teaches anything like they shouldn't kill, or anything silly like that? I mean it's not like they believe god commanded them not to.

Hell, even if he did, it's not like it's written in stone, or anything

Hell, even if he did, it's not like it's written in stone, or anything

It's fine to kill as long as you do so in an effort to save lives or, failing that, to protect the righteous from the assaults of the heathens. Our excursion into Iraq can be classified in the first category; Israel's wars can be listed under the second.

It's fine to kill as long as you do so in an effort to save lives or, failing that, to protect the righteous from the assaults of the heathens. Our excursion into Iraq can be classified in the first category; Israel's wars can be listed under the second.

Wow, dude-seriously, never try and save my life...I wouldn't survive it...

It's fine to kill as long as you do so in an effort to save lives or, failing that, to protect the righteous from the assaults of the heathens. Our excursion into Iraq can be classified in the first category; Israel's wars can be listed under the second.

i agree with the first part but isreal is a bun ch of shit evrything they do is so retarded and they are never questioned by the international community because the Arab world is considered stupid and terroristic so they dont care we are dying because israel wants the war they are the problem...tell them to go back where they came from and give us back OUR land

o by the way fuck the democrats

Wow, dude-seriously, never try and save my life...I wouldn't survive it...

Just remember that your soul is more important than your life.

Just remember that your soul is more important than your life.

What's that? :confused:

i agree with the first part but isreal is a bun ch of shit evrything they do is so retarded and they are never questioned by the international community because the Arab world is considered stupid and terroristic so they dont care we are dying because israel wants the war they are the problem...tell them to go back where they came from and give us back OUR land

o by the way fuck the democrats

Right. Can we stay away from Israel for a least one thread please?

OP:

Shame the military has to be politicised by any party or ideology in the first place really.

What's that? :confused:

Seems like something that a serial killer would say right before driving a cross through my forehead.

Maybe the Republican troops just prefer being all gung-ho on militarism when there isn't a war going on...

militarism - it's just not as fun when you actually have to do it yourself

Seems like something that a serial killer would say right before driving a cross through my forehead.

No, it would be the kind of thing that a beneficent man might say in an attempt to save your immortal soul. It would be an attempt to force you to re-examine your priorities and bump "life" down on that list.

No, it would be the kind of thing that a beneficent man might say in an attempt to save your immortal soul. It would be an attempt to force you to re-examine your priorities and bump "life" down on that list.


...by driving a cross through my forehead.

Yeah, I got it the first time.

No, it would be the kind of thing that a beneficent man might say in an attempt to save your immortal soul. It would be an attempt to force you to re-examine your priorities and bump "life" down on that list.

RuleCaucasia, your a twat. Someone had to say it. You have ridiculous views and a trollish name. Your a twat.

Seems like something that a serial killer would say right before driving a cross through my forehead.

Seems like something a priest would say before he put his mouth on my winky. :(

Yeah. You might also mention that Nixon, a Republican, got us out of Vietnam. By the time Carter, the first Dem since Kennedy, got into office it was long over.

Got out of it with the help of the Congressional Democrats who defunded the thing. I'd also like to mention that the first advisors were sent in by Eisenhower.

Got out of it with the help of the Congressional Democrats who defunded the thing. I'd also like to mention that the first advisors were sent in by Eisenhower.

I'd also like to mention that anybody who disagrees with the Vietnam War is either a "twat," as I have been so politely called a few posts back, or an America-hating communist.

RuleCaucasia, your a twat. Someone had to say it. You have ridiculous views and a trollish name. Your a twat.
Really?
If pressed, I'd have said he was a cock.
I'm reminded of the bit in 'The Office' (UK original version) where Tim keeps repeating 'you're a cock you're a cock you're a cock you're a cock you're a cock' at Gareth.
There's quite a few trolls on this board that regularly remind me of that scene.

I'd also like to mention that anybody who disagrees with the Vietnam War is a twat.

Wow, fascism is the order of the day I see.

I'd also like to mention that anybody who disagrees with the Vietnam War is either a "twat," as I have been so politely called a few posts back, or an America-hating communist.
"Disagrees with the Vietnam War." Interesting phrase. Now, what exactly does it mean? It has no semantic content at present. I need to know more before I decide on your twattiness or lack thereof.

"Disagrees with the Vietnam War." Interesting phrase. Now, what exactly does it mean? It has no semantic content at present. I need to know more before I decide on your twattiness or lack thereof.

Very good point Herr Professor.

Does this mean that if I disagree with the running of the Vietnam War because I think the US should have carpet-bombed North Vietnam into oblivion, I'm a twat?
Well, RuleCaucasia, does it?

What if I disagree because I think the US should have sent a lot more troops with clearer directions and orders and looked at wiping the communists out in tote. Does this make me a twat in your eyes, RuleCaucasia?

What if I disagree because I think the US should have nuked the place?

Or am I just a twat for thinking it was a complete waste of time, money and (most important) lives?


no prizes for guessing which one he'll go for.:rolleyes:

Very good point Herr Professor.

Does this mean that if I disagree with the running of ithe Vietnam War because I think the US should have carpet-bombed North Vietnam into oblivion, I'm a twat?
Well, RuleCaucasia, does it?

What if I disagree because I think the US should have sent a lot more troops with clearer directions and orders and looked at wiping the communists out in tote. Does this make me a twat in your eyes, RuleCaucasia?

What if I disagree because I think the US should have nuked the place?

Or am I just a twat for thinking it was a complete waste of time, money and (most important) lives?


no prizes for guessing which one he'll go for.:rolleyes:
Don't forget the potential for the "the Vietnam War didn't happen because Congress never declared war. It was a police action, stupid!"

Don't forget the potential for the "the Vietnam War didn't happen because Congress never declared war. It was a police action, stupid!"
D'oh! I always forget that one!
Vietnam was just 'Police Action'. right. That explains LA cops then.

Seems like they're following the rest of the country (http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-brooks5jan05,1,2196274.column?coll=la-news-columns&ctrack=1&cset=true):



I'm glad to see this, and it jibes with my experience with my students who are in the military. They're not buying the old bullshit line that Democrats hate the troops anymore.

Thank god for that, man. I hate the Republican bullshit.

Yes, yes, the Democrats are twats and the Republicans are dumbasses. Let's blame those damn hedonistic athiests and those backwater Christians while we're at it, since it hasn't made it into the thread so far.

Anyways, here's the original poll from the Military Times website - http://www.militarycity.com/polls/

As was pointed out in the thread earlier, while the Republican percentage has decreased, the democratic is still only 11 percent - what's more telling than the party affiliation is the conservative/liberal poll, which splits the military evenly as far as polictial bent goes - something that has actually been pretty consistent throughout the years. The military has for the most part always been a reflection of the population at large, the notable exception being that the military population has shown a higher level of education than the general populace.

As far as the Republicanization on the military goes, several articles have pointed out that the Democratic party, with its generally anti-military and war stance, doesn't exactly breed the military type - that, and one of the other demographic differences between military and general populations is that there tends to be more southerners and people affiliating themselves with a religion.

All in all, nothing new - Americans and the military getting tired of war and fighting has existed since before the Revolutionary war. I am interested in knowing what the soldiers think of the 20,000 soldiers being sent over - maybe a poll a few months from now?

Does this mean that if I disagree with the running of the Vietnam War because I think the US should have carpet-bombed North Vietnam into oblivion, I'm a twat?
Well, RuleCaucasia, does it?

What if I disagree because I think the US should have sent a lot more troops with clearer directions and orders and looked at wiping the communists out in tote. Does this make me a twat in your eyes, RuleCaucasia?

What if I disagree because I think the US should have nuked the place?

No, because you would not be disagreeing with the war per se, but rather the conduct thereof.

Or am I just a twat for thinking it was a complete waste of time, money and (most important) lives?

Precisely.

No, because you would not be disagreeing with the war per se, but rather the conduct thereof.

Still haven't explained what you mean.

Don't forget the potential for the "the Vietnam War didn't happen because Congress never declared war. It was a police action, stupid!"

Although you are technically correct, I find that to be a small semantical point that is unworthy of my consideration. However, the police action (or war) was necessary to safeguard the rights of the persecuted Christians. No moral man can possibly have wished for the pious Christians to be slaughtered by the godless communists.

Still haven't explained what you mean.

It's elementary, my dear Nazz. I'm sure you'll discover the answer to that question if you really put your mind to it.

It's elementary, my dear Nazz. I'm sure you'll discover the answer to that question if you really put your mind to it.

Sorry child. I'm a pro when it comes to deciphering language--it's my life's work, you might say--and your statement "disagrees with the Vietnam War" is semantically null. So either provide context, or admit that it means nothing.

By the way, I expect you'll do neither, based on your previous posts.

Although you are technically correct, I find that to be a small semantical point that is unworthy of my consideration. However, the police action (or war) was necessary to safeguard the rights of the persecuted Christians. No moral man can possibly have wished for the pious Christians to be slaughtered by the godless communists.
What does their god have to do with it? some of us wish to not see any innosent man or women hurt regardless of religion


Seems rather un Christian of you to put in all those qualifiers regarding protection of the innocent

Actually, there is some truth to it. My friend is Army, and he isn't registering as a republican to vote absentee in Texas next time. He is going to Vote Conservative, whether it is democrat or Republican. Reason for, and I qoute him exactly on this " Bush ain't done much as far as I'm concerned on letting us have free reign on hunting down jihaddis in Iraq and elsewhere".

Wow, looks like about 64% of the military is not going to get promoted.

it's my life's work, you might say

Then you obviously need to work some more, I might say. It's only five words; how hard can it be to decipher the comment? Perhaps you would find it useful to diagram the sentence before proceeding any further. I really don't know how else to help you, but you really need to learn to do this for yourself.

Wow, looks like about 64% of the military is not going to get promoted.

Why, because of their political affiliation? What an insulting thing to say - do you think that military officers are so shallow as to not a promote someone just because of their party? You think a good person who does their job won't get promoted because of his political views?

We should privatize our school system and eliminate the teachers who seek to indoctrinate their pupils with their political beliefs, whether they do it intentionally or subconsciously.

You mean like your mother? I'd like to see you do that.

Then you obviously need to work some more, I might say. It's only five words; how hard can it be to decipher the comment? Perhaps you would find it useful to diagram the sentence before proceeding any further. I really don't know how else to help you, but you really need to learn to do this for yourself.Let me clue you in on something--"disagrees with the Vietnam War" is not a sentence.

Got out of it with the help of the Congressional Democrats who defunded the thing. I'd also like to mention that the first advisors were sent in by Eisenhower.

Key Word "Advisors" the "Troops" "for combat operations" were sent in By Kennedy.....and then more then doubled in number by Johnson......Last I knew both Democrats.........there is a difference between Advisor and combat troops.

Wow, looks like about 64% of the military is not going to get promoted.
Military doesn’t work that way pal. That’s the civilian leadership of the military you’re thinking of. You know, the ones at the Pentagon, the White House and inside the Green Zone in Iraq?

Still haven't explained what you mean.
Oh, come on, Nazz, I think we all know what the poster means. I've been away from NS for a while and this is my first time reading him, and he's totally obvious to me. Totally. ;)

(BTW, when did we start putting out so much troll-feed around here?)

Yes, yes, the Democrats are twats and the Republicans are dumbasses. Let's blame those damn hedonistic athiests and those backwater Christians while we're at it, since it hasn't made it into the thread so far.

Anyways, here's the original poll from the Military Times website - http://www.militarycity.com/polls/

As was pointed out in the thread earlier, while the Republican percentage has decreased, the democratic is still only 11 percent - what's more telling than the party affiliation is the conservative/liberal poll, which splits the military evenly as far as polictial bent goes - something that has actually been pretty consistent throughout the years. The military has for the most part always been a reflection of the population at large, the notable exception being that the military population has shown a higher level of education than the general populace.

As far as the Republicanization on the military goes, several articles have pointed out that the Democratic party, with its generally anti-military and war stance, doesn't exactly breed the military type - that, and one of the other demographic differences between military and general populations is that there tends to be more southerners and people affiliating themselves with a religion.

All in all, nothing new - Americans and the military getting tired of war and fighting has existed since before the Revolutionary war. I am interested in knowing what the soldiers think of the 20,000 soldiers being sent over - maybe a poll a few months from now?

I have recently come back from a deployment in Iraq.....where I served side by side with Dems and Repubs....including some staunch NYC Dems.....while most did not like Bush....most did think that what we were doing there was important..... and I think a lot of that reasoning was the fact we were interacting with the Iraqis on a day to day basis.....and that was in Tikrit Saddams home town before I was shipped to Al-Anbar province for the rest of My tour. We ran a check point working daily with the locals who both passed through it and who worked side by side with us at it.

I also got to see the results of a multiple VBIED incident in Ramadi brought on by foreign insurgents after the local sunni sheiks told their followers to take jobs with the police and that they should all try to work to make a coalition gov't work. Those people where attacked by foreign muslims who do not want to see stability.... more then 200 injured and 2 dozen killed. Why was it done......because some people seem to be afraid of a strong stable Iraq in the middle east. I will agree not everyone wants us there helping....but the majority of them do. Why do we not see that in the papers? WHy do we not see pictures and stories of all the good things the military does over there? The same reason almost all you hear is statements and news articles showing things against the war and about people who dislike it. Because that is the prevailant wind. In a few years the Dems will be in complete power and you will see the news agencies bite the hand that was just feeding them......sort of like they did back in the 60's..... the news only likes to print sensational things.... which pretty much means bad things...since good does not sell as much as blood and bad things.

I also do nto think any poll really shows what people as a whole anywhere think..... because from one valley to the next even when living next door to each other Americans are different....that is what makes us Unique in this world and our form of democracy unique....not sure if it is the best form but it sure is Ours.

Oh and I almost forgot....I am supposed to deploy this fall to Afghanistan....do i want to go ? No, I am a single parent. Will I go? Yes, because maybe the people I am going to help could use a chance to get on their own two feet and decide what form of Democracy/Gov't is right for them..... just like someone helped us more then 200 years ago.... where would be now if no one had come to our aid? where will our future be if we never help anyone else?

I have recently come back from a deployment in Iraq.....where I served side by side with Dems and Repubs....including some staunch NYC Dems.....while most did not like Bush....most did think that what we were doing there was important..... and I think a lot of that reasoning was the fact we were interacting with the Iraqis on a day to day basis.....and that was in Tikrit Saddams home town before I was shipped to Al-Anbar province for the rest of My tour. We ran a check point working daily with the locals who both passed through it and who worked side by side with us at it.

I also got to see the results of a multiple VBIED incident in Ramadi brought on by foreign insurgents after the local sunni sheiks told their followers to take jobs with the police and that they should all try to work to make a coalition gov't work. Those people where attacked by foreign muslims who do not want to see stability.... more then 200 injured and 2 dozen killed. Why was it done......because some people seem to be afraid of a strong stable Iraq in the middle east. I will agree not everyone wants us there helping....but the majority of them do. Why do we not see that in the papers? WHy do we not see pictures and stories of all the good things the military does over there? The same reason almost all you hear is statements and news articles showing things against the war and about people who dislike it. Because that is the prevailant wind. In a few years the Dems will be in complete power and you will see the news agencies bite the hand that was just feeding them......sort of like they did back in the 60's..... the news only likes to print sensational things.... which pretty much means bad things...since good does not sell as much as blood and bad things.

I also do nto think any poll really shows what people as a whole anywhere think..... because from one valley to the next even when living next door to each other Americans are different....that is what makes us Unique in this world and our form of democracy unique....not sure if it is the best form but it sure is Ours.
I respect you for your service, but from another perspective, you sort of have to think that your work is important and beneficial, don't you? I mean, you're putting your lives on the line every single day. You wouldn't want to be doing that for someone else's bullshit political expediency, now would you?

I'm bad with pundits' names, but there was a military expert on MSNBC tonight who made a good point about the poll numbers coming out of the military. He suggested that the message the political debate among the civilian leadership sends to the troops in active service is that there is a lack of commitment from the top to the project. US troops are smart people, mostly, and proud of their abilities. They are willing to lay down their lives to do the best possible job, but they know when they are getting hosed. The expert opinion is that the troop poll numbers are sending a message back home -- either give us what we need to carry out our mission, or stop wasting our time and our lives. In other words, either shit or get off the pot. Bush's "strategies" do neither of those things. The fact that the troops are no longer willing to pretend they don't know that is significant, imo.

Sorry child. I'm a pro when it comes to deciphering language--it's my life's work, you might say--and your statement "disagrees with the Vietnam War" is semantically null. So either provide context, or admit that it means nothing.

By the way, I expect you'll do neither, based on your previous posts.

Clearly he means if you disagree with the Vietnam War's choice of drapes, you're a twat. I mean, duh...

sorry, I couldn't sit on that any longer...

I respect you for your service, but from another perspective, you sort of have to think that your work is important and beneficial, don't you? I mean, you're putting your lives on the line every single day. You wouldn't want to be doing that for someone else's bullshit political expediency, now would you?

I'm bad with pundits' names, but there was a military expert on MSNBC tonight who made a good point about the poll numbers coming out of the military. He suggested that the message the political debate among the civilian leadership sends to the troops in active service is that there is a lack of commitment from the top to the project. US troops are smart people, mostly, and proud of their abilities. They are willing to lay down their lives to do the best possible job, but they know when they are getting hosed. The expert opinion is that the troop poll numbers are sending a message back home -- either give us what we need to carry out our mission, or stop wasting our time and our lives. In other words, either shit or get off the pot. Bush's "strategies" do neither of those things. The fact that the troops are no longer willing to pretend they don't know that is significant, imo.

I agree with you we have to beleive that....but at the same time like you say we are smart. Your Military Expert at MSNBC is being paid by MSNBC...he is going to follow their line of thought in my opinion.never upset your paymaster But you can't fire the rank and file troops in the army...we do not have to agree with our boss. ANd WMD's who cares.... but working side by side with someone who says thank you we have a chance at a real and better life thanks to you! That is what matters....and most troops will tell you that. I will not get the WMD thing going...I have seen some things in the last few years that would make even a kindergardner wonder though......

But ask yourself this....and ask the newspapers and even the TV news....where are the good things that happen in Iraq every day and why are they not shown to the public? Look at the National news for our country.... usually does not look to wonderful does it? so maybe we should pull out of America too?

Kind of like Presidential hopeful Sen Dodd said tonite...."50 years ago everything was stable in the middle east"....."the Arabs were not causing trouble". Not sure what planet he grew up on....but the history books I studied in School tell a different tale.... that part of the world has not been stable since the days of Saladin. And things got a whole lot worse back in the 40's when the UK set up most of the nations now there.....and the Germans tried formenting rebelion against the british to help their own cause during the war. I think if we have people trying to get into power with beleifs like his then our country is in as much trouble under their kind as they are when people talk about Bush right now. Denial does not do any better then what they call ignorance right now. (IMO)

Seems like they're following the rest of the country (http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-brooks5jan05,1,2196274.column?coll=la-news-columns&ctrack=1&cset=true):

I'm glad to see this, and it jibes with my experience with my students who are in the military. They're not buying the old bullshit line that Democrats hate the troops anymore.

Which means they will be more obliged too follow the "Republicans are idiots and hate people of other race" line more often eh? This'll be fun. :rolleyes:

...but working side by side with someone who says thank you we have a chance at a real and better life thanks to you! That is what matters....and most troops will tell you that. I will not get the WMD thing going...I have seen some things in the last few years that would make even a kindergardner wonder though......

But ask yourself this....and ask the newspapers and even the TV news....where are the good things that happen in Iraq every day and why are they not shown to the public? Look at the National news for our country.... usually does not look to wonderful does it? so maybe we should pull out of America too?

...



Ashlyynn Rocks! *accolades and Pumping fists in the air*

It is SO nice to see that there is still hope for the US, young people like you are that reason. Thank you for what you say and what you do! :)

Wow, looks like about 64% of the military is not going to get promoted.

Damn, that's insulting. You'll find that many people in the military don't discuss politics while at work, since it's not the military's place to have any say in politics. In my 4 years on active duty I rarely knew my buddys' stances on more than a couple of political issues.

*snip*

Where in Ramadi were you? I lived in the north palace in OIF1 until the 82nd moved in and then I moved out to Al Asad.

I agree with you we have to beleive that....but at the same time like you say we are smart. Your Military Expert at MSNBC is being paid by MSNBC...he is going to follow their line of thought in my opinion.never upset your paymaster But you can't fire the rank and file troops in the army...we do not have to agree with our boss. ANd WMD's who cares.... but working side by side with someone who says thank you we have a chance at a real and better life thanks to you! That is what matters....and most troops will tell you that. I will not get the WMD thing going...I have seen some things in the last few years that would make even a kindergardner wonder though......

But ask yourself this....and ask the newspapers and even the TV news....where are the good things that happen in Iraq every day and why are they not shown to the public? Look at the National news for our country.... usually does not look to wonderful does it? so maybe we should pull out of America too?

Kind of like Presidential hopeful Sen Dodd said tonite...."50 years ago everything was stable in the middle east"....."the Arabs were not causing trouble". Not sure what planet he grew up on....but the history books I studied in School tell a different tale.... that part of the world has not been stable since the days of Saladin. And things got a whole lot worse back in the 40's when the UK set up most of the nations now there.....and the Germans tried formenting rebelion against the british to help their own cause during the war. I think if we have people trying to get into power with beleifs like his then our country is in as much trouble under their kind as they are when people talk about Bush right now. Denial does not do any better then what they call ignorance right now. (IMO)
My point of view is that the war was an obvious mistake from the beginning and that its management from the top civilian level has been so incompetent that, frankly, I personally consider every soldier killed there to have been murdered by his/her own commander in chief. I do not doubt for a moment that most of the service personnel in the field are doing their best to actually do something worthwhile - and I am happy that you sometimes succeed - but from the domestic front, listening to what our leaders say, I firmly believe your talents are being wasted, not to mention your lives.

I am not a military person myself, but I am also not a child. I've seen several presidents and a number of military actions and justifications for those actions. I have been benefitted also by the experience of elder relatives who fought in Vietnam, Korea and WW2, as well as extensive readings in history, including military history. I do not base my opinions on the editorial slant of MSNBC. I base them on placing Bush's actions into a historical context and comparing them to the good and bad actions of other presidents in other, similar or dissimilar situations. And on careful consideration of the results of Bush's actions and decisions.

You may believe in this mission. Fine. I take a different approach to the problems of the Middle East and have a different notion of what the duty of the US government is. I believe Bush's approach was the wrong one, and I believe that he - not you - is in derelicition of his duty to the nation that elected him. His misuse of our armed forces is part of that dereliction.

Your duty is one thing. His is another.

As to that pundit, whose name I couldn't be bothered to remember, I remembered his point only because it reflected the opinion I already had. That's why I called it a "good point." ;)


EDIT: Btw, I should point out that those "good things" in Iraq, all that building a better life for Mr and Mrs Average Iraqi, would not persuade me that this was the right thing to do. I personally do not care about Mr & Mrs Average Iraqi, nor whether they are happy or sad, or alive or dead. On a much larger scale, I believe that the interests of the US are being damaged by the effect Bush's war in Iraq is having on that region. The notion of happy Iraqis sending their kids to air-conditioned schools and playing soccer in shiny new neighborhoods does not make up, imo, for the near-guaranteed long-term hegemony of Iran thanks to Bush's adventure, nor the empowerment of radical Islamist groups and legitimization of groups like Hezbollah (supported by Iran).

Good for the .mil, good for america.

I agree with you we have to beleive that....but at the same time like you say we are smart. Your Military Expert at MSNBC is being paid by MSNBC...he is going to follow their line of thought in my opinion.never upset your paymaster But you can't fire the rank and file troops in the army...we do not have to agree with our boss. ANd WMD's who cares.... but working side by side with someone who says thank you we have a chance at a real and better life thanks to you! That is what matters....and most troops will tell you that. I will not get the WMD thing going...I have seen some things in the last few years that would make even a kindergardner wonder though......

But ask yourself this....and ask the newspapers and even the TV news....where are the good things that happen in Iraq every day and why are they not shown to the public? Look at the National news for our country.... usually does not look to wonderful does it? so maybe we should pull out of America too?

snip
We have vested interest in America ... as we live here.

I have no problem taking on hard or even apparently impossible tasks, they just have to be worth my while. You seem to equate wanting to pull out because of lack of persistence even when things look bad, maybe it is because of clarity of sight

Sticking with something through thick and thin can be a good thing ... if it is the right thing to do. but doing it blindly is not the way to go about it.

That's most likely because of slipping public educational standars and liberal teachers like yourself. We should privatize our school system and eliminate the teachers who seek to indoctrinate their pupils with their political beliefs, whether they do it intentionally or subconsciously.

So the neutral thing to do is to teach pupils that democrats hate soldiers?

So the neutral thing to do is to teach pupils that democrats hate soldiers?

Perhaps they don't hate them, but they simply want to kill them.

Perhaps they don't hate them, but they simply want to kill them.

Yeah ... cause you know not wanting to send them into unnecessary danger obviously shows a wish to kill them :rolleyes:

Why do I even bother

Killing or otherwise halting a murderer is preferable to allowing him to continue on his bloody rampage. Those who decide to attempt to expunge murderers from our society enjoy a strong moral sense.

So the commandments read "Thou shalt not kill....unless?" Rule, you seriously have to be the reincarnation of MTAE and you suck in both lives.

Although you are technically correct, I find that to be a small semantical point that is unworthy of my consideration. However, the police action (or war) was necessary to safeguard the rights of the persecuted Christians. No moral man can possibly have wished for the pious Christians to be slaughtered by the godless communists.

So all the matters are that the "Christians" were saved right? Because you take care of your own side and fuck everyone who tries to get in the way. By the way my ignorant troll; the communists were not Godless as all. They have a variety of religions and some were actually, eeek, Christian. Godless communists was a term creating by Eisenhower and empowering him to put the words "under God" into the pledge of allegiance. You knew that though right? Your us vs. them mentality is a bore really and will only lead to the demise of more of the world's people.

Edit: Oh, I thought the war was to "control communism." Or was it fo WMD? Or to free the people? To spread democracy? blah blah bleh.

Damn, that's insulting. You'll find that many people in the military don't discuss politics while at work, since it's not the military's place to have any say in politics. In my 4 years on active duty I rarely knew my buddys' stances on more than a couple of political issues.



Where in Ramadi were you? I lived in the north palace in OIF1 until the 82nd moved in and then I moved out to Al Asad.

I was in a really dinky place on the North side of Ramadi called Combat Outpost over near Ft. Corregidor..... I was there as part of the 101st when it was turned over to them by the marines who we were all attached to. If you know where the Saddam Mosque was in Ramadi....our ComOp was just down the street from it maybe a half a mile.

Ashlyynn Rocks! *accolades and Pumping fists in the air*

It is SO nice to see that there is still hope for the US, young people like you are that reason. Thank you for what you say and what you do! :)

*LOL* Thanks for calling me young.....I joined the Military during My junior year in High School and served in the active military before getting out during budget cuts and going into the guard. I have about 15 years combined time between the two branches and I am in my 30's a student, and a single father. But I serve alongside the same young people you are applauding here in your post and it is nice to see people have convictions and being willing to follow them. Sadly too many youth now a days think they are owed something.....and also think that everything should be given to them, and/or that just good thoughts will fix the problems of our society......but sometimes youhave to roll up your sleeves and apply some elbow grease to those problems because they do not fix themselves. Those are the youth of today that make me proud and have hope for our country.

Although you are technically correct, I find that to be a small semantical point that is unworthy of my consideration. However, the police action (or war) was necessary to safeguard the rights of the persecuted Christians. No moral man can possibly have wished for the pious Christians to be slaughtered by the godless communists.

What persecution? The persectution only started when the US appointed Diem, a fanatic catholic, as dictator of South Vietnam. Once he started enforcing his religion on the primarily Buddhist population, there were reprisals by the Buddhist members of the Viet Cong (they were not godless; there gripe with the Vietnamese government had nothing to do with an international "communist conspiracy".)

My point of view is that the war was an obvious mistake from the beginning and that its management from the top civilian level has been so incompetent that, frankly, I personally consider every soldier killed there to have been murdered by his/her own commander in chief. I do not doubt for a moment that most of the service personnel in the field are doing their best to actually do something worthwhile - and I am happy that you sometimes succeed - but from the domestic front, listening to what our leaders say, I firmly believe your talents are being wasted, not to mention your lives.

I am not a military person myself, but I am also not a child. I've seen several presidents and a number of military actions and justifications for those actions. I have been benefitted also by the experience of elder relatives who fought in Vietnam, Korea and WW2, as well as extensive readings in history, including military history. I do not base my opinions on the editorial slant of MSNBC. I base them on placing Bush's actions into a historical context and comparing them to the good and bad actions of other presidents in other, similar or dissimilar situations. And on careful consideration of the results of Bush's actions and decisions.

You may believe in this mission. Fine. I take a different approach to the problems of the Middle East and have a different notion of what the duty of the US government is. I believe Bush's approach was the wrong one, and I believe that he - not you - is in derelicition of his duty to the nation that elected him. His misuse of our armed forces is part of that dereliction.

Your duty is one thing. His is another.

As to that pundit, whose name I couldn't be bothered to remember, I remembered his point only because it reflected the opinion I already had. That's why I called it a "good point." ;)


EDIT: Btw, I should point out that those "good things" in Iraq, all that building a better life for Mr and Mrs Average Iraqi, would not persuade me that this was the right thing to do. I personally do not care about Mr & Mrs Average Iraqi, nor whether they are happy or sad, or alive or dead. On a much larger scale, I believe that the interests of the US are being damaged by the effect Bush's war in Iraq is having on that region. The notion of happy Iraqis sending their kids to air-conditioned schools and playing soccer in shiny new neighborhoods does not make up, imo, for the near-guaranteed long-term hegemony of Iran thanks to Bush's adventure, nor the empowerment of radical Islamist groups and legitimization of groups like Hezbollah (supported by Iran).

More power to you and your opinions......that is what makes our nation what it is....we do not all have to agree on things. I also did not think any of your statements were against me or the troops for what we do.

I also amd while not in body a child .....(I try to keep the spirit) and have seen many a president come and go.....and even respected and defended some I did not agree with for stupid things the press has said. I have also benefited from the wisdom of friends and family who have served in the conflicts of the 20th century, and through a great deal of study of those same conflicts while contemplating to finish school as a History teacher or not. I think many of our previous wars....especially the 2 WW's were a direct cause of( at least of our involvement in them) of our not giving 2 cents for how others are treated or live. If we are isolationists and ignore the suffering of the world around us then things will only get worse for everyone including us. I think a middle ground needs to be found between isolationism and forcing your views on others.

I also think your giving too much credit to Iran.....but then if the UN were to pull it's collective head out of their butt's they may see the trouble being caused by Iran and Hezzbollah and instead of actully just talking would do something to enforce all the directives they have given to both groups. That is the UN's problem they are too afraid of upseting anyone if they used their mind and read history themselves they would remember that that was the problem with their predecessor(sp?) the League of Nations.....who made ruling but never enforced anything and so all we ended up doing was having a second world war where millions more lives were lost. Trying to talk and work things out diplomatically are all well and good....but soooner or later you have to back your words up with muscle......or no one will take your word for having any value.

What persecution? The persectution only started when the US appointed Diem, a fanatic catholic, as dictator of South Vietnam. Once he started enforcing his religion on the primarily Buddhist population, there were reprisals by the Buddhist members of the Viet Cong (they were not godless; there gripe with the Vietnamese government had nothing to do with an international "communist conspiracy".)


Blame the French...*LOL* Ho Chi Minh wanted US help and aid and wanted to set his country up as a friend of the US, but president and congress were afraid to offend the French who were so recently beaten by the Vietminh. So looks like political correctness once again caused more grief for people.....when will we do the right thing instead of the "proper" thing?

Yeah ... cause you know not wanting to send them into unnecessary danger obviously shows a wish to kill them :rolleyes:

Why do I even bother

As if the first few posts didn't show him to be a UN abassadorship wannabe?

Perhaps they don't hate them, but they simply want to kill them.

And that's a neutral point of view, is it?

Of course the number of Republicans who sign up to the military is going to peak when a Republican president is waging a war that Republicans agree with.

I'm pretty sure Jesus is ashamed you're alive.
How judgemental can you get???

Not everyone, just those with a strong moral sense.
"Better Iraqis dying than Americans" is about the weakest, barely extant moral senses I can think of, and it's frequently used as a reason for the Iraq war.

Killing or otherwise halting a murderer is preferable to allowing him to continue on his bloody rampage. Those who decide to attempt to expunge murderers from our society enjoy a strong moral sense.
Off-topic.

It's fine to kill as long as you do so in an effort to save lives or, failing that, to protect the righteous from the assaults of the heathens. Our excursion into Iraq can be classified in the first category; Israel's wars can be listed under the second.
You really are very ignorant if you think the Iraq war has saved anyone's life.

How are Jews to be considered "the righteous" any more than Muslims? Whatever about the actions of either people, at least Muslims recognise Jesus.

As for "protect the righteous from the assaults of the heathens", we can indeed recognise evil people, but as I recall, our Lord said "do no resist an evil person." (Matthew 5:39)

"Better Iraqis dying than Americans" is about the weakest, barely extant moral senses I can think of, and it's frequently used as a reason for the Iraq war.

Only a small percentage of all Iraqis are Christians, and those who are moral in that way are not going to partake in the sectarian conflict that is ongoing in Iraq. Virtually the only Iraqis dying are those who have not accepted Jesus as their savior, and thus by killing them we are simply hastening their descent into Hell. Most Americans, on the other hand, are good Christians who we cannot allow to be slaughtered by terrorists.


You really are very ignorant if you think the Iraq war has saved anyone's life.

By my calculations, approximately 12,435 Americans would have died as the result of terrorist attacks over the past 4 years had we not invaded Iraq. The algorithm used to derive that particular result was created by my teacher, so I cannot state with certainty how that particular figure was arrived at; however, I have faith that it is correct.

How are Jews to be considered "the righteous" any more than Muslims?

If the Arabs lay down their arms, there would be peace. If the Israelis lay down their arms, there would be no more Israel.

So the commandments read "Thou shalt not kill....unless?" Rule, you seriously have to be the reincarnation of MTAE and you suck in both lives.

Killing a murderer isn't murder. It's justifiable homicide, and it was justified in the bible.

That part in the Bible is extremely misqouted. It means don't murder, and murder is defined as unlawful killing. Self preservation allows for justifiable homicide.

Only a small percentage of all Iraqis are Christians, and those who are moral in that way are not going to partake in the sectarian conflict that is ongoing in Iraq. Virtually the only Iraqis dying are those who have not accepted Jesus as their savior, and thus by killing them we are simply hastening their descent into Hell. Most Americans, on the other hand, are good Christians who we cannot allow to be slaughtered by terrorists.




By my calculations, approximately 12,435 Americans would have died as the result of terrorist attacks over the past 4 years had we not invaded Iraq. The algorithm used to derive that particular result was created by my teacher, so I cannot state with certainty how that particular figure was arrived at; however, I have faith that it is correct.



If the Arabs lay down their arms, there would be peace. If the Israelis lay down their arms, there would be no more Israel.

QFT

Virtually the only Iraqis dying are those who have not accepted Jesus as their savior, and thus by killing them we are simply hastening their descent into Hell.

Oh, well it's OK to kill non-Christians, is it? Nice work at the anti-Christian trolling aspect: You make Christians look like idiotic bloodthirsty assholes. That IS your goal.

Most Americans, on the other hand, are good Christians who we cannot allow to be slaughtered by terrorists.

Mm, and the non-Christians CAN be "allowed" to be slaughtered, I see. Again, nice work at trying to discredit a major world religion.

By my calculations, approximately 12,435 Americans would have died as the result of terrorist attacks over the past 4 years had we not invaded Iraq. The algorithm used to derive that particular result was created by my teacher, so I cannot state with certainty how that particular figure was arrived at; however, I have faith that it is correct.

Ah, beautiful! : An appeal to authority, ("my teacher"), mixed with an absurd contradiction (I dunno how the algorithm works but it's for sure correct anyway!), and of course the bogus "algorithm" and "calculations" in the first place, which stem from the one place the rest of your 'arguments' do: Your rectal fissures.

Nice work. Come again. Have a nice day.

Killing a murderer isn't murder. It's justifiable homicide, and it was justified in the bible.

No. Killing is only justifiable in self-defense. It's not like there's an open season on any murderers (or in this case anyone who is judged without trial to be a murderer). That doesn't work legally, morally or spiritually.

That part in the Bible is extremely misqouted. It means don't murder, and murder is defined as unlawful killing. Self preservation allows for justifiable homicide.

Har ok. I declare that because you look like someone I know who is a murderer, you must be a murderer, therefore you must be planning to kill me, therefore I come over and kill you, your wife, your children and random people in your neighborhood.

The Bible supports me in this.

Of course the number of Republicans who sign up to the military is going to peak when a Republican president is waging a war that Republicans agree with.

When did liberals ever fight a war for the US?

No. Killing is only justifiable in self-defense. It's not like there's an open season on any murderers (or in this case anyone who is judged without trial to be a murderer). That doesn't work legally, morally or spiritually.

Ermm, I apologize. I should have made it clearer It is the responsibilty of the state to carry out the sentence on convicted murderers. To do anything less is a travesty of justice. It's in the Bible, where it is stressed. It's not a one time thing in the OT, but it's also in the NT aswell. Evil demands punishment-reap what you sow, etc. Rulers are there to beget destruction upon eviler doers, etc, ad infinitum.



Har ok. I declare that because you look like someone I know who is a murderer, you must be a murderer, therefore you must be planning to kill me, therefore I come over and kill you, your wife, your children and random people in your neighborhood.

The Bible supports me in this.

No, it does not. I may look like a murderer does not mean I am one. It would be a case of mistaken identity, and you would get punished. Executing my family would get you the death penalty in the south.

When did liberals ever fight a war for the US?

During WWI, WWII, and WWIII.

Only a small percentage of all Iraqis are Christians, and those who are moral in that way are not going to partake in the sectarian conflict that is ongoing in Iraq. Virtually the only Iraqis dying are those who have not accepted Jesus as their savior, and thus by killing them we are simply hastening their descent into Hell. Most Americans, on the other hand, are good Christians who we cannot allow to be slaughtered by terrorists.



BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Get out, troll.


By my calculations, approximately 12,435 Americans would have died as the result of terrorist attacks over the past 4 years had we not invaded Iraq. The algorithm used to derive that particular result was created by my teacher, so I cannot state with certainty how that particular figure was arrived at; however, I have faith that it is correct.


And who is your teacher, may I ask?
(I'd also like to point out that by lowest estimate, 50,000 Iraqis have died in Iraq.)


If the Arabs lay down their arms, there would be peace. If the Israelis lay down their arms, there would be no more Israel.
Israel killing terrorists ought to make more terrorists by my logic.

It goes like this:
1. Terrorist blows himself up in Israeli restaurant.
2. Israel storms in to wherever the guy used to live and kills people who in theory, planned all this.
3. Arab TV shows this to arabs. Israel gets less popular.
4. Terrorist who watches TV goes into Israeli restaurant and blows himself up.
5. Repeat 1-5 ad infinitum.

BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Get out, troll.

And who is your teacher, may I ask?
(I'd also like to point out that by lowest estimate, 50,000 Iraqis have died in Iraq.)

Israel killing terrorists ought to make more terrorists by my logic.

It goes like this:
1. Terrorist blows himself up in Israeli restaurant.
2. Israel storms in to wherever the guy used to live and kills people who in theory, planned all this.
3. Arab TV shows this to arabs. Israel gets less popular.
4. Terrorist who watches TV goes into Israeli restaurant and blows himself up.
5. Repeat 1-5 ad infinitum.

Not saying I agree with all that was posted earlier...but I am just asking you a question about your opinion..... How would you deal with the terrorist?

Not saying I agree with all that was posted earlier...but I am just asking you a question about your opinion..... How would you deal with the terrorist?Easy! How would you deal with the donald? Just ignore him/just shoot him dead. That's how you deal with REAL threats. Your "the terrorist" you can do nought with, cos that's just a buzzword.

Easy! How would you deal with the donald? Just ignore him/just shoot him dead. That's how you deal with REAL threats. Your "the terrorist" you can do nought with, cos that's just a buzzword.

ok how do you deal with these people who attack innocents in the hopes of getting others to bow down to their demands?

ok how do you deal with these people who attack innocents --- in the hopes of getting others to bow down to their demands?I kill them dead. I leave the cute part of your post unanswered.

Only a small percentage of all Iraqis are Christians, and those who are moral in that way are not going to partake in the sectarian conflict that is ongoing in Iraq. Virtually the only Iraqis dying are those who have not accepted Jesus as their savior, and thus by killing them we are simply hastening their descent into Hell. Most Americans, on the other hand, are good Christians who we cannot allow to be slaughtered by terrorists.

I don't know where you're getting this twisted idea from. Muslims do not deserve to be killed for being Muslim. It is not only sick, but blatantly illogical to kill them. If you kill a Muslim, you can never teach him about Jesus. If a Christian is killed, they will already be saved, and will ascend to heaven.

*I question your claim that most Americans are "good Christians" (given that yours is one of the world's more decadent nations).

**Disclaimer: I don't think that any people, Muslim or Christian, should be allowed to get slaughtered by terrorists.

By my calculations, approximately 12,435 Americans would have died as the result of terrorist attacks over the past 4 years had we not invaded Iraq. The algorithm used to derive that particular result was created by my teacher, so I cannot state with certainty how that particular figure was arrived at; however, I have faith that it is correct.
I don't. The Iraq war created terrorists, rather than stopped them. There are 57 Britons and 192 Spaniards who would still be living if there had been no Iraq war.

If the Arabs lay down their arms, there would be peace. If the Israelis lay down their arms, there would be no more Israel.
That's not what I was asking you about. I was asking you to explain how Jews are somehow more righteous than Muslims. If anything, Judaism is less compatible with Christianity than Islam is. The Jews regard our central belief - the divinity of Jesus Christ - as a heresy. At least Muslims pay Him the respect of regarding him as an important prophet.

QFT
You take his bullshit seriously?

When did liberals ever fight a war for the US?
By liberals I assume you mean Democrats. They have waged numerous wars in your country's history. The two most recent, most significant ones are WWII and Vietnam.

When did liberals ever fight a war for the US?
Assuming you are linking liberals with Democrats, why don't you go through the Halls of Congress and look at which party boasts more combat veterans?

When did liberals ever fight a war for the US?

Ummm..... I did in 2003. There are a lot more "liberals" in the military than you think.

Ummm..... I did in 2003. There are a lot more "liberals" in the military than you think.You have to forgive Captain pooby. He thinks the Limbaughs of this world are all super-patriots and brilliant minds and can never possibly be wrong about anything, so if they call liberals a bunch of limp-wristed pussy-fags who hate the soldiers, they must of course be right.

Seems like they're following the rest of the country (http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-brooks5jan05,1,2196274.column?coll=la-news-columns&ctrack=1&cset=true):

I'm glad to see this, and it jibes with my experience with my students who are in the military. They're not buying the old bullshit line that Democrats hate the troops anymore.
To me, this is truly remarkable. If the Republican party can't even command support of the troops any more at the polls, it's in even more serious trouble than I thought.

You have to forgive Captain pooby. He thinks the Limbaughs of this world are all super-patriots and brilliant minds and can never possibly be wrong about anything, so if they call liberals a bunch of limp-wristed pussy-fags who hate the soldiers, they must of course be right.

Actually, I think he's an alright guy except for a serious case of rose colored glasses. Once he actually enlists and spends a couple years in the military he'll find that it's a much more diverse organization than he thinks.

edit: Of course, I'm not saying that I agree with Captain pooby's politics, but I think he believes what he believes because he thinks it's for the best, not because he's a partisan cheerleader, which so many Republicans and Democrats are these days.

To me, this is truly remarkable. If the Republican party can't even command support of the troops any more at the polls, it's in even more serious trouble than I thought.

Don't worry, the Republicans will turn out just fine in '08. They got a winning spirit and utilize spoilage to full effect. They will also carry the undead vote.

To me, this is truly remarkable. If the Republican party can't even command support of the troops any more at the polls, it's in even more serious trouble than I thought.

The poll basically shows some significant disenchantment with the Republicans--at least as far as self-identification is concerned--but it doesn't show major gains for the Republicans. What happened was that the Republicans went from 60% two years ago to 46% this year, which is a major drop. Independents gained the most, though, which tells me that the military isn't becoming more Democratic so much as it's more up for grabs now. It's not a solid bloc anymore, and you're right, that's problematic for the Republican party.

The poll basically shows some significant disenchantment with the Republicans--at least as far as self-identification is concerned--but it doesn't show major gains for the Republicans. What happened was that the Republicans went from 60% two years ago to 46% this year, which is a major drop. Independents gained the most, though, which tells me that the military isn't becoming more Democratic so much as it's more up for grabs now. It's not a solid bloc anymore, and you're right, that's problematic for the Republican party.
Which is interesting, since the military tends to be a good representation of America.

I hope to god that independants start to get more of a chance in future elections.

Which is interesting, since the military tends to be a good representation of America.

Perhaps the military is generally a proportional representation of America, but the views of the military tend to be significantly more conservative than that of the American public. It would go something like this.

Conservatives in military = 1.25 * conservatives in US.

Brilliant, the army's stopped listening to the party of big business and is instead listening to the party of big business. Hoozah.

Brilliant, the army's stopped listening to the party of big business and is instead listening to the party of big business.

Perhaps they have, but the second capitalist party is a little less enthusiastic about bloody imperialist ventures.

I think that's a good thing.

Perhaps they have, but the second capitalist party is a little less enthusiastic about bloody imperialist ventures.

I think that's a good thing.

At least recently that's been the case. Will it last? Probably not, if history is any indication. Both major parties have shown a propensity for starting stupid wars in the past.

Now watch as AC2 goes Corny on us again and tells us how the troops are breaking rules and talking out their asses criticizing Il Douche's handling of Iraq.

Do you have to attack someone who really does not care one way or the other?

Don't want it to go too far either direction. Neither party is trustworthy and there's no reason for a majority of our forces to like either party.

This I agree with.

Not characterizing yourself as "Republican" doesn't automatically mean characterizing oneself as a "Democrat".

It might mean that the military will be getting fed up with being sent anywhere by any party, and then having the rug pulled out from them by any other party.

This will be the second major US war where this has happened. They were pretty sore about it the last time - the hatred was institutionalized.

See Heinlein's book on what happens when the military gets fed up with the politicians.

Nothing good whatsoever.

Got out of it with the help of the Congressional Democrats who defunded the thing. I'd also like to mention that the first advisors were sent in by Eisenhower.

Then Kennedy sent more in and then LBJ sent in the troops.

I'd also like to mention that anybody who disagrees with the Vietnam War is either a "twat," as I have been so politely called a few posts back, or an America-hating communist.

Boy you are an idiot aren't you. Just leave and leave the debating to those of us who actually know a thing or two about war and politics.

Then Kennedy sent more in and then LBJ sent in the troops.
No question, and then Nixon escalated further and expanded the war into Cambodia and Laos. When it comes to Vietnam, there's plenty of blame to go around. That whole mess was, to use a Jon Stewart word, a catastrofuck.

When did liberals ever fight a war for the US?

Revolutionary War? Civil War?

edit: Of course, I'm not saying that I agree with Captain pooby's politics, but I think he believes what he believes because he thinks it's for the best, not because he's a partisan cheerleader, which so many Republicans and Democrats are these days.

I agree with this statment here. Especially about partisan cheerleaders.

No question, and then Nixon escalated further and expanded the war into Cambodia and Laos. When it comes to Vietnam, there's plenty of blame to go around. That whole mess was, to use a Jon Stewart word, a catastrofuck.

I could not agree with you more.

I have recently come back from a deployment in Iraq.....where I served side by side with Dems and Repubs....including some staunch NYC Dems.....while most did not like Bush....most did think that what we were doing there was important..... and I think a lot of that reasoning was the fact we were interacting with the Iraqis on a day to day basis.....and that was in Tikrit Saddams home town before I was shipped to Al-Anbar province for the rest of My tour. We ran a check point working daily with the locals who both passed through it and who worked side by side with us at it.

I also got to see the results of a multiple VBIED incident in Ramadi brought on by foreign insurgents after the local sunni sheiks told their followers to take jobs with the police and that they should all try to work to make a coalition gov't work. Those people where attacked by foreign muslims who do not want to see stability.... more then 200 injured and 2 dozen killed. Why was it done......because some people seem to be afraid of a strong stable Iraq in the middle east. I will agree not everyone wants us there helping....but the majority of them do. Why do we not see that in the papers? WHy do we not see pictures and stories of all the good things the military does over there? The same reason almost all you hear is statements and news articles showing things against the war and about people who dislike it. Because that is the prevailant wind. In a few years the Dems will be in complete power and you will see the news agencies bite the hand that was just feeding them......sort of like they did back in the 60's..... the news only likes to print sensational things.... which pretty much means bad things...since good does not sell as much as blood and bad things.

I also do nto think any poll really shows what people as a whole anywhere think..... because from one valley to the next even when living next door to each other Americans are different....that is what makes us Unique in this world and our form of democracy unique....not sure if it is the best form but it sure is Ours.

Oh and I almost forgot....I am supposed to deploy this fall to Afghanistan....do i want to go ? No, I am a single parent. Will I go? Yes, because maybe the people I am going to help could use a chance to get on their own two feet and decide what form of Democracy/Gov't is right for them..... just like someone helped us more then 200 years ago.... where would be now if no one had come to our aid? where will our future be if we never help anyone else?

First off, I want to commend you for your service. Were it not for a medical issue during the physical, I would be there as well. I have nothing but the highest respect for those that sacrifice their well-being and safety to ensure it for those that may or may not be able to fend for themselves. So, I will defend the rights of those that are willing to make such sacrifices and those that make the supreme sacrifice.

While the overall occupation is political, what you, the soldiers, do is not. They do the best they can with the situation. Is there dissent? Sure (my cousin is about to leave again for Iraq and he's none to thrilled, but he goes because that is what soldiers do). Can things be done differently? Absolutely. I will say, and I know this goes against 90% of what is felt on these boards, that if we leave things as they are and pack it in, it is going to really start getting bad, and I am sure most who are over there will agree. The sectarian violence will escalate and someone will be put to paid for it... likely the US, since we 'caused' the sectarian violence (we have soooo much to do with sunnis and shiites hating each other).

So, I hear about the good things our troops do through various sources and I support all of you, for if things had turned out differently I would be there myself.

Oh, you made another point about stability in the Middle East and saying it hasn't been stable since Saladin. I think even Saladin would disagree. That region was last stable around 2800 BCE, give or take a century or so :)

It's fine to kill as long as you do so in an effort to save lives or, failing that, to protect the righteous from the assaults of the heathens. Our excursion into Iraq can be classified in the first category; Israel's wars can be listed under the second.

so you're saving the "heathens" in one war then killing them in another?
:confused:

Has anyone actually read the article quoted from the Military Times? It appears, if I'm not mistaken that the L.A. Times told some bald-faced lies in its reporting. If anyone ever wanted to convince me of a liberal bias in the U.S. media, now would be a good time.

COMPARISON

Military Times:
Approval of the president’s Iraq policy fell 9 percentage points from 2004; a bare majority, 54 percent, now say they view his performance on Iraq as favorable.

Military Times:
Nearly two-thirds said the military is stretched too thin to be effective, though that figure is down substantially from two years ago.
Poll: http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2005_chart1.php
Article: http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2005_main.php


L.A. Times:
The poll shows that only 35% of military personnel approve of the president's handling of the war, and three-fourths of those polled say that the military is "stretched too thin to be effective."
http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-brooks5jan05,1,2196274.column?coll=la-news-columns&ctrack=1&cset=true



Am I crazy or did the L.A. Times just a pull a "liberal media?"

Has anyone actually read the article quoted from the Military Times? It appears, if I'm not mistaken that the L.A. Times told some bald-faced lies in its reporting. If anyone ever wanted to convince me of a liberal bias in the U.S. media, now would be a good time.

COMPARISON

Military Times:


The article: http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2005_main.php
The poll (linked from article): http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2005_chart1.php

L.A. Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-brooks5jan05,1,2196274.column?coll=la-news-columns&ctrack=1&cset=true


Military Times:

Poll: http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2005_chart1.php


Am I crazy or did the L.A. Times just a pull a "liberal media?"

Either that or the LA Times did not have the correct facts or put what civilians were saying in place of the military. Mistakes happen.

Either that or the LA Times did not have the correct facts or put what civilians were saying in place of the military. Mistakes happen.
So it's a mere concidence that the L.A. Times made a mistake that mischaracterized the views of the U.S. military to look as if they, by large margins, disapprove of Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, and believe that the military is spread too thin in inflated margins, at the same time that Bush is calling for an increase in troop numbers over there and facing much backlash for it?

Hmmm....

Either that or the LA Times did not have the correct facts or put what civilians were saying in place of the military. Mistakes happen.

Mistakes happen? Had Bush made this mistake, the world would be all over him and yet the LA Times gets a pass? I understand there is a double media standard when it comes to liberal versus conservatives and I find it distressing as a moderate. I suppose the facts weren't sensational enough.

Mistakes happen? Had Bush made this mistake, the world would be all over him and yet the LA Times gets a pass? I understand there is a double media standard when it comes to liberal versus conservatives and I find it distressing as a moderate. I suppose the facts weren't sensational enough.

For the LA Times, probably not :D

And yes, it may have been a mistake or it may have been intentional. We have no evidence either way.

Has anyone actually read the article quoted from the Military Times? It appears, if I'm not mistaken that the L.A. Times told some bald-faced lies in its reporting. If anyone ever wanted to convince me of a liberal bias in the U.S. media, now would be a good time.

COMPARISON

Military Times:


Military Times:

Poll: http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2005_chart1.php
Article: http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2005_main.php


L.A. Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-brooks5jan05,1,2196274.column?coll=la-news-columns&ctrack=1&cset=true



Am I crazy or did the L.A. Times just a pull a "liberal media?"
Not crazy--just looking at the wrong year. The stuff you posted is from the 2005 poll, and the LA Times is referring to the 2006 poll. I can see how you'd be mistaken however, what with a 5 and a 6 looking so much alike.

Yeah, I ran into that mistake the first time - the numbers weren't matching, so I had to search a bit to get the 2006 numbers.

Right. Can we stay away from Israel for at least one thread, please?

Hear, hear!

What persecution?

How about cutting out the tongues of teachers who taught their pupils about religion? Or jamming chopsticks into the ears of the pupils in question, so their eardrums ruptured? Or pounding nails into the heads of Christians? Or decapitating and disemboweling people who refused to renounce their faith? As bad as Diem was - and he was extremely bad - he was nothing compared to the Stalinist regime in the North or its flunkies.

At least recently that's been the case. Will it last? Probably not, if history is any indication. Both major parties have shown a propensity for starting stupid wars in the past.

QFT.

No question, and then Nixon escalated further and expanded the war into Cambodia and Laos. When it comes to Vietnam, there's plenty of blame to go around. That whole mess was, to use a Jon Stewart word, a catastrofuck.

We were already involved in Laos. At one point in the 1950s, we were paying something like 80% of the Lao government's budget. Then in 1961, Kennedy started Project Momentum, where we trained the Hmong to fight the communists. And whether we should have been involved in Vietnam or not, going into Cambodia made sense, militarily speaking, at least. Giving the enemy sanctuary is utterly stupid. When the enemy attacks, they should be pursued wherever they go, until they either surrender or are killed.

More power to you and your opinions......that is what makes our nation what it is....we do not all have to agree on things. I also did not think any of your statements were against me or the troops for what we do.
Thanks, but around here it pays to be painfully obvious on that score.

I also amd while not in body a child .....(I try to keep the spirit) and have seen many a president come and go.....and even respected and defended some I did not agree with for stupid things the press has said. I have also benefited from the wisdom of friends and family who have served in the conflicts of the 20th century, and through a great deal of study of those same conflicts while contemplating to finish school as a History teacher or not. I think many of our previous wars....especially the 2 WW's were a direct cause of( at least of our involvement in them) of our not giving 2 cents for how others are treated or live. If we are isolationists and ignore the suffering of the world around us then things will only get worse for everyone including us. I think a middle ground needs to be found between isolationism and forcing your views on others.
I think I agree with you on general principles, and it would only be on details of how to implement foreign policy strategies that we would disagree. But that is what committees are for. :)

I also think your giving too much credit to Iran.....but then if the UN were to pull it's collective head out of their butt's they may see the trouble being caused by Iran and Hezzbollah and instead of actully just talking would do something to enforce all the directives they have given to both groups.
Haha. The bolded part shows a major part of the problem because guess what's not going to happen any time soon? (And I say that as a fan of the UN concept.)

That is the UN's problem they are too afraid of upseting anyone if they used their mind and read history themselves they would remember that that was the problem with their predecessor(sp?) the League of Nations.....who made ruling but never enforced anything and so all we ended up doing was having a second world war where millions more lives were lost. Trying to talk and work things out diplomatically are all well and good....but soooner or later you have to back your words up with muscle......or no one will take your word for having any value.
Well, now we get into the area of details of implementation on which we are more likely to disagree. I am not actually an isolationist, though I may not be as wholeheartedly internationalist as some people. However, I do not believe that the militaristic tactic taken by the current US administration is NOT* the right one to achieve the results we want.

*edit

ReadMyMind? Planning on retracting your charges against the LA Times anytime soon?

ReadMyMind? Planning on retracting your charges against the LA Times anytime soon?

Gee, question the biases of the media and you get a firing squad! :D

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php
Yes, I retract my charges. My mistake. The poll on the other page was dated January 2006...I still haven't adjusted the year in my head yet (takes about a month), so I thought it was current.

Gee, question the biases of the media and you get a firing squad! :D

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php
Yes, I retract my charges. My mistake. The poll on the other page was dated January 2006...I still haven't adjusted the year in my head yet (takes about a month), so I thought it was current.

If you want to talk about a corporate bias in the media, I'm all for it. Liberal bias, however, is bullshit, and I slap down anyone who tries to pull it.

If this thread taught anyone anything, it's not to respond to rule Caucasia

Either that, or we're all morons.

First off, I want to commend you for your service. Were it not for a medical issue during the physical, I would be there as well. I have nothing but the highest respect for those that sacrifice their well-being and safety to ensure it for those that may or may not be able to fend for themselves. So, I will defend the rights of those that are willing to make such sacrifices and those that make the supreme sacrifice.

While the overall occupation is political, what you, the soldiers, do is not. They do the best they can with the situation. Is there dissent? Sure (my cousin is about to leave again for Iraq and he's none to thrilled, but he goes because that is what soldiers do). Can things be done differently? Absolutely. I will say, and I know this goes against 90% of what is felt on these boards, that if we leave things as they are and pack it in, it is going to really start getting bad, and I am sure most who are over there will agree. The sectarian violence will escalate and someone will be put to paid for it... likely the US, since we 'caused' the sectarian violence (we have soooo much to do with sunnis and shiites hating each other).

So, I hear about the good things our troops do through various sources and I support all of you, for if things had turned out differently I would be there myself.

Oh, you made another point about stability in the Middle East and saying it hasn't been stable since Saladin. I think even Saladin would disagree. That region was last stable around 2800 BCE, give or take a century or so :)


Thanks. And I wish your cousin Luck and a speedy return.

Actuallt the area waas very stable under Saladin christians, muslims, and jews lived in peace side by side.....until the misguided pope decided he had to free the "holy land" from the infidels. after that things were never the same.