NationStates Jolt Archive

Up until now, Jane Fonda has been the only person to commit an indisputable act of treason in my lifetime. It appears we have another candidate, however, in the Senate Majority Leader, Mr. Harry Reid. Thursday, Reid stated (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070420/D8OK1PE03.html)that the war in Iraq is "lost".

Why would I even think such a political statement is treason? First, I've been where our troops are. I was lucky and Desert Storm was a popular war. I can easily imagine the erosion of morale when the Stars and Stripes starts reporting the lack of faith that our national leaders have in them.

Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, said it far better when he said, "I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost."

Second, as the President said shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Anyone who says something that puts a smile on the faces of those Islamic terrorists who are trying to kill our troops isn't with us. There's a word for people like that.

That word is traitor. Dictionary.com has a few definitions for the word. See how you like them:

1. A person who betrays another, a cause or any trust.
2. A person who commits treason by betraying his or her country

I am absolutely certain that more soldiers will die as a result of Reid's treasonous words. As a leader of the Democratic party, this only confirms the commitment the party has shown toward causing our defeat at the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists. Never in my life have I seen a political party more dedicated to our nation's defeat in armed conflict.

The proper place for Harry Reid is not at the head of the Senate, but in prison.

Agree with the war or go to jail! Don't dare disagree because the troops might not like it! Having a different opinion is treason!

w/e. Go sing bad Beach Boys with McCain :rolleyes:

So let me get this straight:

Reid saying "the war is lost" = treason.

George W Bush losing the war = not treason.

Reid saying "the war is lost" will result in troop deaths.

George W Bush forcing our country into a poorly-planned and disastrously-executed war, failing to provide basic equipment to troops, and slashing funds for the health care of soldiers and veterans will somehow not result in troop deaths.

Okay. Sure. Yeah. You run with that idea. In fact, these gentlemen here with this nice soft padded jacket are interested in hearing all about your theories.

Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, said it far better when he said, "I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost."

I'd expect they will react much the same as if they heard that the Democratic leader of the USA has declared that water is wet.

It's pretty goddam insulting to suggest that the troops are as stupid and cowardly as Bush and the chickhawk brigade here at home.

So let me get this straight:

Reid saying "the war is lost" = treason.

George W Bush losing the war = not treason.

Reid saying "the war is lost" will result in troop deaths.

George W Bush forcing our country into a poorly-planned and disastrously-executed war, failing to provide basic equipment to troops, and slashing funds for the health care of soldiers and veterans will somehow not result in troop deaths.

Okay. Sure. Yeah. You run with that idea. In fact, these gentlemen here with this nice soft padded jacket are interested in hearing all about your theories.

What you clearly fail to understand Bottle, is that Dear Leader Bush is obviously never wrong.

Ick, I feel so dirty now

Man, you know what, I thought I needed to change my pants, coz i smelt a pile of shit, but luckily it was just this thread.

THough I disagree with what Harry Reid said, I do not equate his words to treason.

So it's treason to tell the truth? If US soldiers are just going to rout and flee in every direction because political leaders at home disagree with the war, then I think you need to train them better.

What you clearly fail to understand Bottle, is that Dear Leader Bush is obviously never wrong.

Ick, I feel so dirty now

This has nothing to do with whether Bush is right, the war is right, or how things will end after the troops leave. It has everything to do with the old adage that politics stop at the water's edge. When we have troops in harm's way, it's one thing to debate whether or not they should be brought home. That's a necessary part of government. It's wholly another matter to describe their plight as hopeless. That's what I object to.

This has nothing to do with whether Bush is right, the war is right, or how things will end after the troops leave. It has everything to do with the old adage that politics stop at the water's edge. When we have troops in harm's way, it's one thing to debate whether or not they should be brought home. That's a necessary part of government. It's wholly another matter to describe their plight as hopeless. That's what I object to.

Pity about that pesky first ammendment of yours.

And wouldn't their plight being hopeless be an excellent reason for them to be brought home? And as such relevant to the discussion about whether they should be brought home?

This has nothing to do with whether Bush is right, the war is right, or how things will end after the troops leave. It has everything to do with the old adage that politics stop at the water's edge. When we have troops in harm's way, it's one thing to debate whether or not they should be brought home. That's a necessary part of government. It's wholly another matter to describe their plight as hopeless. That's what I object to.

So you feel we have won or are winning so convincingly that his assessment is just stupid? WE could stay in Iraq another 50 year s and still might not accomplish our task. It may not be hopeless, but it damn sure is close. The problem is with the civilian leadership, not the military.

This has nothing to do with whether Bush is right, the war is right, or how things will end after the troops leave. It has everything to do with the old adage that politics stop at the water's edge. When we have troops in harm's way, it's one thing to debate whether or not they should be brought home. That's a necessary part of government. It's wholly another matter to describe their plight as hopeless. That's what I object to.
Its not like they are doing it to be mean. They are stating the truth. Do you think we should just shut up and be quiet about an injustice?

go away MTAE.

go away MTAE.

QFT :p

Up until now, Jane Fonda has been the only person to commit an indisputable act of treason in my lifetime. It appears we have another candidate, however, in the Senate Majority Leader, Mr. Harry Reid. Thursday, Reid stated (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070420/D8OK1PE03.html)that the war in Iraq is "lost".

Why would I even think such a political statement is treason? First, I've been where our troops are. I was lucky and Desert Storm was a popular war. I can easily imagine the erosion of morale when the Stars and Stripes starts reporting the lack of faith that our national leaders have in them.

Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, said it far better when he said, "I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost."

Second, as the President said shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Anyone who says something that puts a smile on the faces of those Islamic terrorists who are trying to kill our troops isn't with us. There's a word for people like that.

That word is traitor. Dictionary.com has a few definitions for the word. See how you like them:

1. A person who betrays another, a cause or any trust.
2. A person who commits treason by betraying his or her country

I am absolutely certain that more soldiers will die as a result of Reid's treasonous words. As a leader of the Democratic party, this only confirms the commitment the party has shown toward causing our defeat at the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists. Never in my life have I seen a political party more dedicated to our nation's defeat in armed conflict.

The proper place for Harry Reid is not at the head of the Senate, but in prison.

So...funny...(rolls on floor laughing his ass off)

But it is not hopeless. It will only become hopeless if our political leaders continue to claim it is and people believing them.

Aren't they running out of funding for the war? That's gonna make it pretty hopeless, regardless of what political leaders claim or people believe.

But it is not hopeless. It will only become hopeless if our political leaders continue to claim it is and people believing them.

Do you see the body count? Do you see how more violence is unfolding everyday? It looks rather hopeless to me.

This has nothing to do with whether Bush is right, the war is right, or how things will end after the troops leave. It has everything to do with the old adage that politics stop at the water's edge. When we have troops in harm's way, it's one thing to debate whether or not they should be brought home. That's a necessary part of government. It's wholly another matter to describe their plight as hopeless. That's what I object to.
Actually, Reid said the Iraq war is lost…if we follow Bush’s course. That's not "hopeless" at all.

Sen. Reid issued the following statement, “And as long as we follow the President’s path in Iraq, the war is lost. But there is still a chance to change course — and we must change course.”

Pity about that pesky first ammendment of yours.

And wouldn't their plight being hopeless be an excellent reason for them to be brought home? And as such relevant to the discussion about whether they should be brought home?

But it is not hopeless. It will only become hopeless if our political leaders continue to claim it is and people believing them.

So...funny...(rolls on floor laughing his ass off)
-Trips over Johnny rolling on the floor-

But that's not what it has to do with either. First off I hardly would think that saying the war is lost is treason. It's not like he's giving troop positions to Osama. ANd where is Osama anyway? If President Bush didn't betray his ADD by going after Iraq for no reason other than bad intel and to guarantee being elected for a second term, maybe, just maybe, we would have gotten who we were going after originally and we wouldn't have to worry about Jane Fonda or Senators now would we?

Actually, Reid said the Iraq war is lost…if we follow Bush’s course. That's not "hopeless" at all.

Sen. Reid issued the following statement, “And as long as we follow the President’s path in Iraq, the war is lost. But there is still a chance to change course — and we must change course.”

Well, I think that about wraps up the thread.

Thanks alot, I was wanting to see more foolish statements!

But it is not hopeless. It will only become hopeless if our political leaders continue to claim it is and people believing them.
And Reid DID NOT CLAIM IT WAS HOPELESS.

Reid pointed out, correctly, that what we are doing isn't working. It has never worked. It will not work.

He advocates changing what we are doing. Bush advocates doing exactly the same shit that has been failing for years. Far as I can see, Bush's side is the only side arguing that anything is hopeless...they're the ones arguing that we can't change what we're doing in any way, even though it's not working at all.

Why would I even think such a political statement is treason?

Second, as the President said shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Anyone who says something that puts a smile on the faces of those Islamic terrorists who are trying to kill our troops isn't with us.
Oh yes. Many dictators said the very same thing. I think that, by saying that, your beloved President betrayed the principles and the ideas that created some small things like the Constitution of the US.



That word is traitor. Dictionary.com has a few definitions for the word. See how you like them:
1. A person who betrays another, a cause or any trust.
2. A person who commits treason by betraying his or her country


You cannot say that "he is a traitor because traitor is he who betrays" and expect any intelligent person to agree that he's a traitor. Tautology, while intrinsically true, doesn't prove anything.
You should first state why a representative voicing his opinion is betraying his mandate or country.


I am absolutely certain that more soldiers will die as a result of Reid's treasonous words. As a leader of the Democratic party, this only confirms the commitment the party has shown toward causing our defeat at the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists.

Excuse me? The republican Secretary of State claims Iraq has WMDs, the republican President sends the soldiers to invade Iraq, the republican-led Department of Defense fails to find WMDs and fails to think of a viable strategy, then it's the democrats' fault?

It reminds me of Stalin. He failed to create a working economical policy, then he said "it's Trotskij's and his fellows' fault, they're traitors because they betrayed because I say so! Who's not with me is a traitor! Gulag and death for them!"

The proper place for Harry Reid is not at the head of the Senate, but in prison.

Oh yeah. Show the world the REAL meaning of "American Democracy" and throw the oppositors in jail!

There is a word for governments who put people in jail because of their political ideas. That word is "dictatorship", or, if you prefer, "tyranny".

Fascist.

Dear Leader Bush is obviously never wrong.


What do you think, will Dear Leader become President For Eternity?

What do you think, will Dear Leader become President For Eternity?

Not if Ahnold has anything to say about it:D

What do you think, will Dear Leader become President For Eternity?

Well Kim Il-Sung already did that, and Bush isn't known for originality.

Actually, Reid said the Iraq war is lost…if we follow Bush’s course. That's not "hopeless" at all.

Sen. Reid issued the following statement, “And as long as we follow the President’s path in Iraq, the war is lost. But there is still a chance to change course — and we must change course.”

Phbt, that sentence is way too long to be a soundbite. Just get the part that grabs attention:


"THE WAR IS LOST" Henry Reid

Actually, Reid said the Iraq war is lost…if we follow Bush’s course. That's not "hopeless" at all.

Sen. Reid issued the following statement, “And as long as we follow the President’s path in Iraq, the war is lost. But there is still a chance to change course — and we must change course.”

no no, don't help him. He'll never learn that way. Eventually you have to stop pulling the baby away and let it get burned, just a little. That way he'll never do it again.

If we point out My's idiocy so often so early, we're just saving him from the really big fall later on

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." is quite possibly the worst political stance ever. It means that you are alienating yourself from everyone who was indifferent, apathetic, neutral or undecided, both domestic and abroad, it's an unnecessary and dangerous broadening. It's disgusting what Bush is doing though, he is essentially saying that not supporting his war and policies is somehow not supporting the troops, and unpatriotic.

Because the initial justification is now void, and Bush's lies exposed, he now has to defend his war in retrospect, in basically saying that 'we are here now, so lets figure this out'. This is obviously just a blatant attempt to divert attention away from why the invasion happened in the first place, the lies, propaganda and misinformation that led in the US into this bloodbath.

But oh no, he won't face up to the ramblings of his neocon friends that got him into it in the first place, he will completely ignore the failures of competence and judgment that happened in the first place. That debate is unwinable, so Bush will just accuse everyone of not being patriotic and supporting the troops, which of course means not supporting his perverted policies.

OK, let's step back for a moment and look at the logical consequences of the opinion expressed in Myrmidonisia's original post. And let's not debate whether the Iraq war is winnable or not; that's actually beside the point. Let's take an entirely hypothetical war that the US can't win, just to avoid current politics.

If we accept his statement at face value, it is treason to ever admit that a war is unwinnable, even if it is true.

So if we are ever in a war that is, in fact, unwinnable, we cannot admit to it. We must continue to say that we are winning the war even if we do not believe it.

Therefore, we have no way to end a war that is unwinnable. If we can't win, we must remain at war in perpetuity, because we can't admit defeat.

And so, because we can't admit defeat, we must continue to send troops to fight and die in a war they cannot win.

So the only possible conclusions to a war are victory or unending quagmire.

Now, I must ask, how demoralizing would it be to our own troops to know that their leaders were deliberately sending them into a war they can't win, just because their leaders could not admit defeat? How demoralizing would it be for them to know that their lives are being sacrificed to no higher purpose than the preservation of their leaders' egos?

All the points above are in relation to an entirely hypothetical war, of course. Any perceived relationship to the Iraq war is entirely in the mind of the reader. So if you perceive such a relationship, you may want to ask yourself why that is.

Well Kim Il-Sung already did that, and Bush isn't known for originality.

I was just thinking about that... wait! and what about the cult of the personality of the ancestors, that is, Bush SENIOR? We have to devise a title for him, too.

To disagree with a goverment policy is now treason in the US?

Looks like Bush and Chávez both are in the same page. I believe if they realize how similar they are to each other they would grow sick to no end, but that is how it is.

To disagree with a goverment policy is now treason in the US?

Looks like Bush and Chávez both are in the same page. I believe if they realize how similar they are to each other they would grow sick to no end, but that is how it is.

For the sake of truth is must be noted, though, that Chavez didn't invade other countries.

To disagree with a goverment policy is now treason in the US?

Looks like Bush and Chávez both are in the same page. I believe if they realize how similar they are to each other they would grow sick to no end, but that is how it is.

The bitterest rivalries are due to similarities, not differences *nods*

I was just thinking about that... wait! and what about the cult of the personality of the ancestors, that is, Bush SENIOR? We have to devise a title for him, too.

Bush the Elder? *shrug*

Edit: I accidentally typed Bush the Eldar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldar_(Warhammer_40,000)), which would have been far more amusing, and gave me a temporary image of Georg Bush Sr. wielding a plasma rifle.

The proper place for Harry Reid is not at the head of the Senate, but in prison.

Traitors are those who sell out the country. I think you should be looking into the White House for those most responsible for the selling.

Or maybe in the mirror for selling out your constitution.

For the sake of truth is must be noted, though, that Chavez didn't invade other countries.

Wasn't Chavez actually elected too? :eek:

For the sake of truth is must be noted, though, that Chavez didn't invade other countries.

Lack of intention, or lack of means to easily bully a small country like Bush did? We could invade, no idea, perhaps Guyana, or Trinidad y Tobago, but, I don't know...

So, let me get this straight.

- Having their tours of duty extended by months upon months because of an underfunded army, being shot at day after day and seeing their friends blown up, is NOT demoralizing.

- But switching on the tv and seeing someone say what they already know better than most, is terribly demoralizing....

I see:rolleyes:

Up until now, Jane Fonda has been the only person to commit an indisputable act of treason in my lifetime. It appears we have another candidate, however, in the Senate Majority Leader, Mr. Harry Reid. Thursday, Reid stated (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070420/D8OK1PE03.html)that the war in Iraq is "lost".

Why would I even think such a political statement is treason? First, I've been where our troops are. I was lucky and Desert Storm was a popular war. I can easily imagine the erosion of morale when the Stars and Stripes starts reporting the lack of faith that our national leaders have in them.

Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, said it far better when he said, "I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost."

Second, as the President said shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Anyone who says something that puts a smile on the faces of those Islamic terrorists who are trying to kill our troops isn't with us. There's a word for people like that.

That word is traitor. Dictionary.com has a few definitions for the word. See how you like them:

1. A person who betrays another, a cause or any trust.
2. A person who commits treason by betraying his or her country

I am absolutely certain that more soldiers will die as a result of Reid's treasonous words. As a leader of the Democratic party, this only confirms the commitment the party has shown toward causing our defeat at the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists. Never in my life have I seen a political party more dedicated to our nation's defeat in armed conflict.

The proper place for Harry Reid is not at the head of the Senate, but in prison.
Enjoying that fapping session you're having with your civil rights hating Republican buddies? Loving the feeling you get when you spit upon free speech, the very thing that allows you to say what you say? I hope you do, because none of us are going to listen to you, hack.

So, let me get this straight.

- Having their tours of duty extended by months upon months because of an underfunded army, being shot at day after day and seeing their friends blown up, is NOT demoralizing.

- But switching on the tv and seeing someone say what they already know better than most, is terribly demoralizing....

I see:rolleyes:
I'd say that having to face combat without the necessary equipment might also be demoralizing. Or knowing that the very people who have sent you to war are going to turn around and refuse to help you pay for treatment for your war wounds.

Would anybody care to place a wager? On the list of Things That Demoralize The Troops, which will rank highest? Harry Reid saying that the war is lost if we don't change course, or Bush saying, "Fight the war for me, but don't expect any solid strategy, gear, or medical care. Oh, and enjoy another three tours of duty back-to-back!"

I'd say that having to face combat without the necessary equipment might also be demoralizing. Or knowing that the very people who have sent you to war are going to turn around and refuse to help you pay for treatment for your war wounds.

Would anybody care to place a wager? On the list of Things That Demoralize The Troops, which will rank highest? Harry Reid saying that the war is lost if we don't change course, or Bush saying, "Fight the war for me, but don't expect any solid strategy, gear, or medical care. Oh, and enjoy another three tours of duty back-to-back!"
...

Bottle, you are one intelligent woman, to be sure. I tip my water bottle to you. (I'd tip a hat but I don't like wearing hats.)

I'd say that having to face combat without the necessary equipment might also be demoralizing. Or knowing that the very people who have sent you to war are going to turn around and refuse to help you pay for treatment for your war wounds.

Would anybody care to place a wager? On the list of Things That Demoralize The Troops, which will rank highest? Harry Reid saying that the war is lost if we don't change course, or Bush saying, "Fight the war for me, but don't expect any solid strategy, gear, or medical care. Oh, and enjoy another three tours of duty back-to-back!"

....and since demoralizing our troops is now tantamount to treason, that means then that the Administration..... anybody?

Who else suspects that Myrm will not be back?

I'd say that having to face combat without the necessary equipment might also be demoralizing. Or knowing that the very people who have sent you to war are going to turn around and refuse to help you pay for treatment for your war wounds.

Would anybody care to place a wager? On the list of Things That Demoralize The Troops, which will rank highest? Harry Reid saying that the war is lost if we don't change course, or Bush saying, "Fight the war for me, but don't expect any solid strategy, gear, or medical care. Oh, and enjoy another three tours of duty back-to-back!"

Sieg Bottle! (salutes)

Who else suspects that Myrm will not be back?

probably not. Agus d'ainm is maith liom. :)

Who else suspects that Myrm will not be back?

He won't be...much like Eve and his cohorts, he'll post something then try to defend the holes in his argument for a while and suddenly vanish.

Still...he has occasionally shown up again in threads, so you never know.

To disagree with a goverment policy is now treason in the US?

Looks like Bush and Chávez both are in the same page. I believe if they realize how similar they are to each other they would grow sick to no end, but that is how it is.

Yes it is, even if you don't live in the US. :rolleyes: (I say this having been at least once told that I said something treasonous and been given the suggestion to leave the US and live in Iran or North Korea.....)

I doubt they are similar... that much. I mean, Chávez is a hardcore socialist who is trying to help the poor in his country...

I'd say that having to face combat without the necessary equipment might also be demoralizing. Or knowing that the very people who have sent you to war are going to turn around and refuse to help you pay for treatment for your war wounds.

Would anybody care to place a wager? On the list of Things That Demoralize The Troops, which will rank highest? Harry Reid saying that the war is lost if we don't change course, or Bush saying, "Fight the war for me, but don't expect any solid strategy, gear, or medical care. Oh, and enjoy another three tours of duty back-to-back!"
I'd put all my eggs in the latter since that's a sure-fire bet victory right there.

And exactly how is honesty demoralising when it's telling of reality? Reid was being brutally honest when he said the war is lost if we don't change course. Yes the truth hurts but the troops in the field can see the reality for themselves.

I'd say it's damn demoralising to be so far from your loved ones. Imagine how they must feel when the news comes on; they are sick with worry that it'll be their loved one next.

Or the soldiers? It seems it would be demoralising to know that you may not see your family ever again. You know you enlisted but you didn't enlist for extended tours of duty. Yes they may feel they are changing the world but at the end of the day, most would rather be having dinner with their friends and family than in a mess hall.

probably not. Agus d'ainm is maith liom. :)

That should be is maith liom d'ainm, and go raibh maith agat.

But it is not hopeless. It will only become hopeless if our political leaders continue to claim it is and people believing them.

This is a war, this is not fucking Tinkerbell, that Peter Pan could kill by saying he didn't believe in it. If you still think it works this way, clap. :p

But it is not hopeless. It will only become hopeless if our political leaders continue to claim it is and people believing them.

It's hopeless if you don't amend battle plans that aren't working.

That should be is maigh liom d'ainm, and go raibh maith agat.

Failte romhat. Ta droch-Gaeilge agam. Nil an muinteoir agam.

Who else suspects that Myrm will not be back?

Well, he knows he'd lose to, basically, ANYONE in an argument, so he trolls and runs.

I doubt they are similar... that much. I mean, Chávez is a hardcore socialist who is trying to help the poor in his country...


If you buy that, then I would have to believe that Bush is a paragon of virtue that is defending the progress, civilization and freedom of the west against the barbarian hordes who are howling at the Western gates, plotting, planning and preparing themselves to overthrow everything that is good and pure. Nothing is like it looks.

To properly label bush, I would have to live in the US for a while. To properly label Chávez, you would have to live here in Venezuela for a while.

Failte romhat. Ta droch-Gaeilge agam. Nil an muinteoir agam.

Eh, I meant maith. Foolish fingers. Is ceart e seo? Bhi muinteoiri agam agus ta mo gaeilge uafasach.

Up until now, Jane Fonda has been the only person to commit an indisputable act of treason in my lifetime. It appears we have another candidate, however, in the Senate Majority Leader, Mr. Harry Reid. Thursday, Reid stated (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070420/D8OK1PE03.html)that the war in Iraq is "lost".

Why would I even think such a political statement is treason? First, I've been where our troops are. I was lucky and Desert Storm was a popular war. I can easily imagine the erosion of morale when the Stars and Stripes starts reporting the lack of faith that our national leaders have in them.

Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, said it far better when he said, "I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost."

Second, as the President said shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Anyone who says something that puts a smile on the faces of those Islamic terrorists who are trying to kill our troops isn't with us. There's a word for people like that.

That word is traitor. Dictionary.com has a few definitions for the word. See how you like them:

1. A person who betrays another, a cause or any trust.
2. A person who commits treason by betraying his or her country

I am absolutely certain that more soldiers will die as a result of Reid's treasonous words. As a leader of the Democratic party, this only confirms the commitment the party has shown toward causing our defeat at the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists. Never in my life have I seen a political party more dedicated to our nation's defeat in armed conflict.

The proper place for Harry Reid is not at the head of the Senate, but in prison.
You know we're living in a fucked up world when people make an apparently serious argument that giving an accurate description of a situation equals treason. This is low, even for you.

You know we're living in a fucked up world when people make an apparently serious argument that giving an accurate description of a situation equals treason. This is low, even for you.

It is treason. This war was begun by the infinite and benevolent wisdom of our great leader. To suggest that the outcome of this most holy crusade is to be different than what our leader knew it would be is to suggest that he, in his most infinite and benevolent wisdom, is capable of error.

The punishment for thus, is death.

Eh, I meant maith. Foolish fingers. Is ceart e seo? Bhi muinteoiri agam agus ta mo gaeilge uafasach.

lol, ach is fearr do Gaeilge. Nior thuig me "uafasach", leigh me mo focloir.

And Reid DID NOT CLAIM IT WAS HOPELESS.

First off, there is no need to shout. I am sitting right here. Second of all, I know he did not say it was hopeless. I was responding to another poster that said it was hopeless.

Pog mo thoin :p
...yada. Anata wa kisama no da. :p

lol, ach is fearr do Gaeilge. Nior thuig me "uafasach", leigh me mo focloir.

Erm...

Céad mille faite? o_o

Erm...

Céad mille faite? o_o

Pog mo thoin :p

Erm...

Céad mille faite? o_o

haha, right back to English then.

It's hopeless if you don't amend battle plans that aren't working.

I would tend to agree with you but what makes you think that the generals are not amending war plans?

I'm gonna drink until I understand that.

When you die of alcohol poisoning, can I have your account?

I would tend to agree with you but what makes you think that the generals are not amending war plans?

because the only competant generals who actually had a chance of winning this thing:

a) quit in disgust
b) were fired, replaced, or otherwise rendered ineffectual by an administration that didn't want to hear that the strategy wouldn't work.

Because after 4 years, the best anyone has been able to come up with to quell massive violence, destablized regimes and growing threats is "send more troops".

lol, ach is fearr do Gaeilge. Nior thuig me "uafasach", leigh me mo focloir.
I'm gonna drink until I understand that.

I'm gonna drink until I understand that.

hehehe. "But your Irish is better. I did not unterstand "horrible". I read my dictionary."

When you die of alcohol poisoning, can I have your account?

He didn't say "understand that correctly".

Actually, Reid said the Iraq war is lost…if we follow Bush’s course. That's not "hopeless" at all.

Sen. Reid issued the following statement, “And as long as we follow the President’s path in Iraq, the war is lost. But there is still a chance to change course — and we must change course.”

Sorry, Bottle, but after reading Reid's exact words, I am not sure that your interpretation was the correct one:

Reid said he told President Bush on Wednesday he thought the war could not be won through military force, although he said the U.S. could still pursue political, economic and diplomatic means to bring peace to Iraq.

"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and -- you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows -- (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid, D-Nevada.

from: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/20/reid.iraq.ap/

It is more than mere criticism of Bush's strategy, or lack thereof. I think he means that the USA cannot accomplish its objectives (whatever they currently are) by using military force in Iraq. It is still far from treason, mind you.

It is still far from treason, mind you.

It's not even far from treason. This is "far" from treason the same way Brazil is "far" from Lothlorien.

If I had made his original statement, then I'd be looking for a way to backstroke away from it, too. But it's too late; the man's a traitor and should be treated thusly.

Ah. My friends, the bullshit wagon has arrived.

If I had made his original statement, then I'd be looking for a way to backstroke away from it, too. But it's too late; the man's a traitor and should be treated thusly.

You're silly.

None to bright, but silly none the less.

It's not even far from treason. This is "far" from treason the same way Brazil is "far" from Lothlorien.

Well they're both famous for their woodlands.

Actually, Reid said the Iraq war is lost…if we follow Bush’s course. That's not "hopeless" at all.

Sen. Reid issued the following statement, “And as long as we follow the President’s path in Iraq, the war is lost. But there is still a chance to change course — and we must change course.”
If I had made his original statement, then I'd be looking for a way to backstroke away from it, too. But it's too late; the man's a traitor and should be treated thusly.

It's not even far from treason. This is "far" from treason the same way Brazil is "far" from Lothlorien.

The funny thing is, treason is the only crime in the US that is actually constitutionally defined. The crime of treason is defined in Art III of the Constitution.

This doesn't even come CLOSE.

If I had made his original statement, then I'd be looking for a way to backstroke away from it, too. But it's too late; the man's a traitor and should be treated thusly.

He should be executed for speaking his mind? That's the punishment for treason.

If I had made his original statement, then I'd be looking for a way to backstroke away from it, too. But it's too late; the man's a traitor and should be treated thusly.

Look, everyone! He showed up! He wants to be humiliated further!

So, you want to make a mockery of your Constitution and HE'S a traitor?

If I had made his original statement, then I'd be looking for a way to backstroke away from it, too. But it's too late; the man's a traitor and should be treated thusly.

Eh, how is he trying to bacstroke away from it? That's his original statement in context, no?


Or did he just stand up somewhere and shout "The war is lost" and then get back to whatever it is he does.

Eh, how is he trying to bacstroke away from it? That's his original statement in context, no?


Or did he just stand up somewhere and shout "The war is lost" and then get back to whatever it is he does.

Yes it is. Myr is a hypocrite of the highest order, using his freedom of speech to berate a person who's politics he doesn't agree with for exercising his.

Reid spoke the truth, just because the neocons and chickenhawks can't take it is no reason to call the man a traitor.

Well they're both famous for their woodlands.

Fine, Saudi Arabia and Lothlorien. :p

First off, there is no need to shout. I am sitting right here.
It's not intended as shouting. I sometimes write using very big letters (and very simple words) in the hopes that some of the slower-witted forum-dwellers will be able to grasp certain fundamental points to a given discussion.

Reid spoke the truth, just because the neocons and chickenhawks can't take it is no reason to call the man a traitor.

When have the neocons OR Myrmi given a fuck about reason?

If I had made his original statement, then I'd be looking for a way to backstroke away from it, too. But it's too late; the man's a traitor and should be treated thusly.

Reid says we are losing a war we are losing. That doesn't make him a traitor - it makes him a realist.

Is this that famous 'reality has a well known liberal bias' thing, again?

The Constitution clearly defines treason as waging war against the US or aiding the enemy. Reid is obviously not doing either.

Sorry, Bottle, but after reading Reid's exact words, I am not sure that your interpretation was the correct one:

from: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/20/reid.iraq.ap/

It is more than mere criticism of Bush's strategy, or lack thereof. I think he means that the USA cannot accomplish its objectives (whatever they currently are) by using military force in Iraq. It is still far from treason, mind you.
What you quoted seems to fit my interpretation.

The surge is simply resulting in a surge of death and injury. No increased stability in the region. No improved security for the United States.

It is absolutely accurate to say that, thanks to Bush and his cronies, the USA cannot accomplish its objectives by using military force in Iraq. The war will not work. Perhaps it could have worked, had it been run by people who were both able and inclined to manage a campaign effectively, but instead we got idiot puppets being controlled by corrupt and thieving jackasses.

If we want to accomplish our goals in Iraq, we are going to have to completely change course. It sucks, because it's always lousy to realize that what you've been doing has been a complete and total failure, but facing reality and making sound choices are what ADULTS do in such situations.

Nothing is accomplished by sitting down in the mud and pouting and refusing to do anything new because Nuh-uh I don't wanna!!!!

The people calling Reid a traitor are, frankly, acting like babies. Their petulant whining doesn't help a single soldier, and forces the grown-ups to divert valuable time and energy to diffusing this pointless "treason" crap.

What you quoted seems to fit my interpretation.

The surge is simply resulting in a surge of death and injury. No increased stability in the region. No improved security for the United States.

It is absolutely accurate to say that, thanks to Bush and his cronies, the USA cannot accomplish its objectives by using military force in Iraq. The war will not work. Perhaps it could have worked, had it been run by people who were both able and inclined to manage a campaign effectively, but instead we got idiot puppets being controlled by corrupt and thieving jackasses.

If we want to accomplish our goals in Iraq, we are going to have to completely change course. It sucks, because it's always lousy to realize that what you've been doing has been a complete and total failure, but facing reality and making sound choices are what ADULTS do in such situations.

Nothing is accomplished by sitting down in the mud and pouting and refusing to do anything new because Nuh-uh I don't wanna!!!!

The people calling Reid a traitor are, frankly, acting like babies. Their petulant whining doesn't help a single soldier, and forces the grown-ups to divert valuable time and energy to diffusing this pointless "treason" crap.

Again: Sieg Bottle! (salutes)

So, let me get this straight. After four years, the casualties are mounting, sectarian violence is increasing, with no sign of abating, and despite the millions ploughed into the occupation of Iraq, it seems no closer to being a successful state. And it is somehow considered treason to look at that and think some thing's gone wrong somewhere. I've seen no evidence that the country is anything other than lost. In any case, the original reason we went to war was to disarm Saddam of WMD (remember that line?). We went in, and found jack shit, so we lose anyway.

So, let me get this straight. After four years, the casualties are mounting, sectarian violence is increasing, with no sign of abating, and despite the hundreds of billions ploughed into the occupation of Iraq, it seems no closer to being a successful state.

Fixed

Fine, Saudi Arabia and Lothlorien. :p

Well, both inhabitants tend to use floating white robes. In particular the rulers.

Fixed
Aye, that too.

Well, both inhabitants tend to use floating white robes. In particular the rulers.

Okay, what about "Antartida and Lothlorien"? :p

You have much to learn about freedom of speech. Both Harry Reid and I enjoy that right and we've both exercised it. What the right doesn't give either one of us is the freedom from the consequences. In my case, it's ignoring the partisanship on NSG, his should be far more serious.

Consequences such as psychotic neocons yelling "treason" at him in order to try and slander him into submission?

I know one thing about freedom of speech: Neocons hate it.

Yes it is. Myr is a hypocrite of the highest order, using his freedom of speech to berate a person who's politics he doesn't agree with for exercising his.

Reid spoke the truth, just because the neocons and chickenhawks can't take it is no reason to call the man a traitor.

You have much to learn about freedom of speech. Both Harry Reid and I enjoy that right and we've both exercised it. What the right doesn't give either one of us is the freedom from the consequences. In my case, it's ignoring the partisanship on NSG, his should be far more serious.

You have much to learn about freedom of speech. Both Harry Reid and I enjoy that right and we've both exercised it. What the right doesn't give either one of us is the freedom from the consequences. In my case, it's ignoring the partisanship on NSG, his should be far more serious.

Yes you have the freedom to say what you want, but by the same token we also have the freedom to call you a jackass for making absurd comments. If thats partisan, well, you'll have to live with it. I guess by your definition every American on these forums are traitors. Jackass

Eh, how is he trying to bacstroke away from it? That's his original statement in context, no?


Or did he just stand up somewhere and shout "The war is lost" and then get back to whatever it is he does.
In the AP story that I linked in, there is no mention of losing the war because we're going about it the wrong way. No matter--that's not the kind of statement that needs to be made publicly, unless you have another agenda. His political agenda should end at the border and his doubts about the conduct of the war should be privately expressed to the Administration. That's a responsible way of proceeding with a criticism that probably needs to be made.

Yes you have the freedom to say what you want, but by the same token we also have the freedom to call you a jackass for making absurd comments. If thats partisan, well, you'll have to live with it. I guess by your definition every American on these forums are traitors. Jackass
You can hardly be a traitor with your words. As a poster on NS, you're not in a position with any recognizable authority. Quite unlike the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, I'd say.

His political agenda should end at the border

Not when our military does not.

and his doubts about the conduct of the war should be privately expressed to the Administration.

so don't do anything that makes the administration look bad?

Nope, sorry, doesn't work that way. The legislative branch is not in any way, at any time, in any mannor beholdent to the executive branch. He owes Bush nothing. He is under no obligation to do a thing to make Bush look good, or make the war look good.

Good for him for actually stating publically what we all know privately. That this war is a failure.

You can hardly be a traitor with your words. As a poster on NS, you're not in a position with any recognizable authority. Quite unlike the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, I'd say.

You hypocrite, you have stated that he uis a traitor because of what he SAID! So which is it? He has taken no physical action to define him as a traitor, yet you insist with one breath, that because of his WORDS he is a traitor and now you say you can't be a traitor through your words. So which is it? Jackass

You can hardly be a traitor with your words.

Good, so you admit your premise is bullshit.

As a poster on NS, you're not in a position with any recognizable authority. Quite unlike the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, I'd say.

Ohhh, so because he's in authority he has less rights. Funny, I didn't see that the last time I read the first amendment.

He is a citizen of this country. He has the same rights you do. And if he wants to stand up and declare that this war is a failure to as many people as he wishes than that is his constitutional right. And the exercising of a constitutional right can never, by definition, be criminal.

A traitor to this nation is one that would seek to deny the fundamental liberties upon which it has been founded. You would seek to put a man in prison because he voiced his opinion, in direct violation of the first amendment.

The only traitor in this thread is you.

I am absolutely certain that more soldiers will die as a result of Reid's treasonous words. As a leader of the Democratic party, this only confirms the commitment the party has shown toward causing our defeat at the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists. Never in my life have I seen a political party more dedicated to our nation's defeat in armed conflict.
My God.

They're going to die because of his words?? Not because of the failed military strategy or failed diplomacy or failed policy enacted by the current administration, not because of the enormous amounts of errors and miscalculations done by Bush and his men, not because of the lack of equipment or training, but because of his words??

I have seldom read a more deranged statement posted sincerely here on NSG, and that is saying something! I'm frankly stunned. Not only that you misrepresent his words, but that you actually believe the drivel that you've posted.
Dear lord man, you really need to wake up and open your eyes to the real world.
The people calling Reid a traitor are, frankly, acting like babies. Their petulant whining doesn't help a single soldier, and forces the grown-ups to divert valuable time and energy to diffusing this pointless "treason" crap.

While I respect your very good and well-reasoned posts, and agree with most of what you've said, I have to ask you to please not insult babies so. :)

As I said a little earlier, this may be a perfectly proper description of the situation. But this isn't the time to encourage our enemies. That's exactly what this kind of talk will do.

I'm sure the talk in Baghdad, Fallujah, or any number of places where our troops are stationed isn't about how bad it is we're losing, it's more about how many more IEDs will be planted, how many more suicide bombers there will be, how many more snipers will take shots at us...

That's exactly what will happen. You watch, these Islamic terrorists aren't stupid. They know what buttons to push. The numbers of dead Americans are going to increase at an increasing rate for a number of days or weeks because of this public discussion about how we can't win.

That's giving aid to our enemy. And that's treason.



Hahaha.. You're not seriously that stupid. No one who can breathe is that retarded. The Iraqis are going to kill us because Harry Reid told them to! Hahahaha!

You're fucking nuts.

You know we're living in a fucked up world when people make an apparently serious argument that giving an accurate description of a situation equals treason. This is low, even for you.

As I said a little earlier, this may be a perfectly proper description of the situation. But this isn't the time to encourage our enemies. That's exactly what this kind of talk will do.

I'm sure the talk in Baghdad, Fallujah, or any number of places where our troops are stationed isn't about how bad it is we're losing, it's more about how many more IEDs will be planted, how many more suicide bombers there will be, how many more snipers will take shots at us...

That's exactly what will happen. You watch, these Islamic terrorists aren't stupid. They know what buttons to push. The numbers of dead Americans are going to increase at an increasing rate for a number of days or weeks because of this public discussion about how we can't win.

That's giving aid to our enemy. And that's treason.

As I said a little earlier, this may be a perfectly proper description of the situation. But this isn't the time to encourage our enemies. That's exactly what this kind of talk will do.

I'm sure the talk in Baghdad, Fallujah, or any number of places where our troops are stationed isn't about how bad it is we're losing, it's more about how many more IEDs will be planted, how many more suicide bombers there will be, how many more snipers will take shots at us...

That's exactly what will happen. You watch, these Islamic terrorists aren't stupid. They know what buttons to push. The numbers of dead Americans are going to increase at an increasing rate for a number of days or weeks because of this public discussion about how we can't win.

That's giving aid to our enemy. And that's treason.

Christ you're almost as bad as corny.

So doing something that can, possibly, in SOME WAY, at some time, maybe, end up helping in some way is treason?

Alright, let's start with John McCain, after all that trip to the market pulled soldiers off of where they would otherwise be, that must have helped them out somehow.

And..oh, let's see. Well I guess Bush comitted treason, since he didn't get those army hospitals running well enough, thus not maximizing turnover efficiency...

Let's see, what else. Oh, I know, those state department trips condi took, sure moved some security details around.

Have any of our troops ever run out of ammo? Well crap, the supplier is a treasonous bastard, because if the ammo didn't run out that soldier could have kept blasting them commies...erm, sorry, terrorists...

As I said before, you are the only traitor to be seen here.

You can hardly be a traitor with your words. As a poster on NS, you're not in a position with any recognizable authority. Quite unlike the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, I'd say.

Uh... yeah, still doesn't make him a traitor to say that the current war is a lost cause, if we keep on the current course(Bolded for emphasis on the part that you casually omitted from what he actually said; even so, to say that the war is lost does not make him a traitor).

He could be considered a traitor if he were to say "I want our enemies to win, and make sure it happens." or something similar. He didn't, you want to call everyone who disagrees with you and your views a traitor, we put them in a gulag, and call it a day.

I agree that what he said could be taken by idiots to be treason

I agree that what he said could be taken by idiots to be treason

you're insulting the idiots.

Up until now, Jane Fonda has been the only person to commit an indisputable act of treason in my lifetime. It appears we have another candidate, however, in the Senate Majority Leader, Mr. Harry Reid. Thursday, Reid stated (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070420/D8OK1PE03.html)that the war in Iraq is "lost".

Why would I even think such a political statement is treason? First, I've been where our troops are. I was lucky and Desert Storm was a popular war. I can easily imagine the erosion of morale when the Stars and Stripes starts reporting the lack of faith that our national leaders have in them.

Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, said it far better when he said, "I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost."

Second, as the President said shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Anyone who says something that puts a smile on the faces of those Islamic terrorists who are trying to kill our troops isn't with us. There's a word for people like that.

That word is traitor. Dictionary.com has a few definitions for the word. See how you like them:

1. A person who betrays another, a cause or any trust.
2. A person who commits treason by betraying his or her country

I am absolutely certain that more soldiers will die as a result of Reid's treasonous words. As a leader of the Democratic party, this only confirms the commitment the party has shown toward causing our defeat at the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists. Never in my life have I seen a political party more dedicated to our nation's defeat in armed conflict.

The proper place for Harry Reid is not at the head of the Senate, but in prison.



OH MY GOOOSES~!!!!!!!!

Just keep clapping Americans. The truth be damned!!! Seriously Myrm, no one is gonna take that bullshit seriously. Go back to hanging out with Bill O'Rielly.

Oh oh, I know. Christians. All christians are traitors, because their worship of a god believed false by Islam is part of what emboldens the islamic terrorists.

Because christians worshipping jesus causes terrorists to become emboldened, this causes more deaths than would happen if they didn't worship jesus.

All christians are thus traitors, because they say something that emboldens the terrorists.

Additionally, so is everyone who eats pork, or is left handed. Surely that's got to piss of ONE terrorist out there.

As I said a little earlier, this may be a perfectly proper description of the situation. But this isn't the time to encourage our enemies. That's exactly what this kind of talk will do.

I'm sure the talk in Baghdad, Fallujah, or any number of places where our troops are stationed isn't about how bad it is we're losing, it's more about how many more IEDs will be planted, how many more suicide bombers there will be, how many more snipers will take shots at us...

That's exactly what will happen. You watch, these Islamic terrorists aren't stupid. They know what buttons to push. The numbers of dead Americans are going to increase at an increasing rate for a number of days or weeks because of this public discussion about how we can't win.

That's giving aid to our enemy. And that's treason.
Okay. Fine. It's treason. So is the speech of all other Democratic senators and representatives. What about the Republicans who've said this kind of thing? Are they treasonous too?

Oh, and let's not forget that apparently, according to you, ensuring a situation where troops will die without much chance of success is treasonous, so let's just slap the entire current administration on the chopping block while we're at it. Maybe the troops who followed those orders too, eh?

Quite simply, you are the single most ridiculous person I've seen on NationStates, Myrmi, and that's COUNTING MeansToAnEnd AND UNAbassadorship. You can't possibly believe any of this bullshit that you're spouting, and if you do, why not go back into the military and go back to Iraq and fight the war you so strongly support rather than merely being a member of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists.

and you know what else? Every woman who wears anything but a burkha. Which is pretty much 99.9% of the women in this country. After all,if our women dressed in ways more acceptable in fundamentalist muslim society, they'd be less emboldened.

Thus wearing things not burkhas angers some muslims, which results in a few of them becomming terrorists/al qaeda etc. Which means more al qaeda recruitment, which means more al qaeda fighting us.

And thus it drives al qaeda recruitment to some degree, and thus aids the enemy. Which is treason.

So all women who wear things other than burkahs have comitted treason, and thus should be executed.

We better hurry this up. Between executing all the christians and all the women we have a lot of work to do.

We'll hang the christian women twice.

I really hope this is sarcasm.

Hypothetical scenario: military officer, Nazi Germany, 1945. Do you say the war is lost, or are you a traitor?

you're insulting the idiots.

And you think it's wrong to insult beloved leader?

You know who else?

Jews.

Do I really need to explain this one?

You know who else?

Jews.

Do I really need to explain this one?

Actually, the terrorists have shown themselves as willing to kill non-fundamentalist muslims, so their existance emboldens them... Which means the only person I can think of by name that isn't a traitor would be John Walker Lindh...

You know who else?

Jews.

Do I really need to explain this one?

Don't forget the gays, every time I suck a dick I embolden the enemy!

Because I'm sure what the terrorists do all day is sit around and watch C-Span for this kind of thing.

As I said a little earlier, this may be a perfectly proper description of the situation. But this isn't the time to encourage our enemies. That's exactly what this kind of talk will do.

I'm sure the talk in Baghdad, Fallujah, or any number of places where our troops are stationed isn't about how bad it is we're losing, it's more about how many more IEDs will be planted, how many more suicide bombers there will be, how many more snipers will take shots at us...

That's exactly what will happen. You watch, these Islamic terrorists aren't stupid. They know what buttons to push. The numbers of dead Americans are going to increase at an increasing rate for a number of days or weeks because of this public discussion about how we can't win.

That's giving aid to our enemy. And that's treason.

It's not even close to treason, and you know it. You're not stupid, but you sure are acting like it in this thread.

Up until now, Jane Fonda has been the only person to commit an indisputable act of treason in my lifetime. It appears we have another candidate, however, in the Senate Majority Leader, Mr. Harry Reid. Thursday, Reid stated (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070420/D8OK1PE03.html)that the war in Iraq is "lost".

Why would I even think such a political statement is treason? First, I've been where our troops are. I was lucky and Desert Storm was a popular war. I can easily imagine the erosion of morale when the Stars and Stripes starts reporting the lack of faith that our national leaders have in them.

Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, said it far better when he said, "I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost."

Second, as the President said shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Anyone who says something that puts a smile on the faces of those Islamic terrorists who are trying to kill our troops isn't with us. There's a word for people like that.

That word is traitor. Dictionary.com has a few definitions for the word. See how you like them:

1. A person who betrays another, a cause or any trust.
2. A person who commits treason by betraying his or her country

I am absolutely certain that more soldiers will die as a result of Reid's treasonous words. As a leader of the Democratic party, this only confirms the commitment the party has shown toward causing our defeat at the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists. Never in my life have I seen a political party more dedicated to our nation's defeat in armed conflict.

The proper place for Harry Reid is not at the head of the Senate, but in prison.


Re: treachery - people in glass houses and all that, dearie. There's too much wiggle room to casually throw around a term like "traitor".

Don't forget the gays, every time I suck a dick I embolden the enemy!


Krispy Kreme. So good, you'll embolden extremist fundamentalist muslim terrorist cells!

Actually, the terrorists have shown themselves as willing to kill non-fundamentalist muslims, so their existance emboldens them... Which means the only person I can think of by name that isn't a traitor would be John Walker Lindh...

The irony, it burns!

Anyone who says something that puts a smile on the faces of those Islamic terrorists who are trying to kill our troops isn't with us.
So are 9/11 jokes in or out?

So are 9/11 jokes in or out?

Damn you Gilbert Gottfried!

Don't forget the gays, every time I suck a dick I embolden the enemy!

Want to go do some emboldening right now? :D

So if saying the war is lost is considered treason, what do you call sending US troops to kill, die, and get wounded for absolutely no good reason in a pointless and wasteful war? Clearly that's an even greater crime. You don't sacrifice the lives of your soldiers and the reputation of your nation for nothing without some serious punishment, right? So what do we do with Bush and everyone in the congress who voted for the war?

You're not stupid, but you sure are acting like it in this thread.

it seems to be a common symptom with american right wingers - in some areas they appear to be at least functional (as far as i know, there isn't a politically divided incidence of people parking their car on the train tracks, for example), but in other areas they shun even basic coherence. i wonder what the cause is? i mean other than the fact that being a right winger requires it, of course.

It's not intended as shouting. I sometimes write using very big letters (and very simple words) in the hopes that some of the slower-witted forum-dwellers will be able to grasp certain fundamental points to a given discussion.

a point that I never refutted I might add. What about the rest of my post?

And this post is baiting an even worse retort. Why can we all just debate civily?

Because this debate has been done to *death*. There's a point where people can keep running in topical circles, or start drawing dots in the middle of those circles so they look like breasts.

And then we can at least stand back and giggle.

Hahaha.. You're not seriously that stupid. No one who can breathe is that retarded. The Iraqis are going to kill us because Harry Reid told them to! Hahahaha!

You're fucking nuts.

And this post is baiting an even worse retort. Why can we all just debate civily?

Why can we all just debate civily?

because you don't try to debate rationally with the guy on the street corner yelling about satan.

Oh oh, I know. Christians. All christians are traitors, because their worship of a god believed false by Islam is part of what emboldens the islamic terrorists.

Because christians worshipping jesus causes terrorists to become emboldened, this causes more deaths than would happen if they didn't worship jesus.

All christians are thus traitors, because they say something that emboldens the terrorists.

Additionally, so is everyone who eats pork, or is left handed. Surely that's got to piss of ONE terrorist out there.

You know? I am glad that I recognized the sarcasm here for it really made my blood pressure rise just a tad.

because you don't try to debate rationally with the guy on the street corner yelling about satan.

You don't? This explains a lot...

Dude, you seriously need to put down the bong. Because whatever the hell you're smoking is clearly causing you to hallucinate. Or turning you into a moron. Either way, you really need to pay attention to everything Reid said, not just the stuff that agrees with your party line.

This is hilarious, mainly because of American stereotypes about political positions.

You have much to learn about freedom of speech. Both Harry Reid and I enjoy that right and we've both exercised it. What the right doesn't give either one of us is the freedom from the consequences. In my case, it's ignoring the partisanship on NSG, his should be far more serious.

Dude, you seriously need to put down the bong. Because whatever the hell you're smoking is clearly causing you to hallucinate. Or turning you into a moron. Either way, you really need to pay attention to everything Reid said, not just the stuff that agrees with your party line.

because you don't try to debate rationally with the guy on the street corner yelling about satan.

The only satan worth yelling about is the one who will be thrown into the pit of fire :D

Up until now, Jane Fonda has been the only person to commit an indisputable act of treason in my lifetime.
You forgot John Walker Lindh.

Last I checked, expressing a dissenting opinion about the war wasn't treason. And I think the Constitution's definition of treason is the one we should go by: "Treason... shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Article III, Section 3 (Source: Cornell Law website (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html).

You don't? This explains a lot...

well you can try, but it's not a winning proposition

Agree with the war or go to jail! Don't dare disagree because the troops might not like it! Having a different opinion is treason!

I consider this another Seal of Approval won. Not because its funny, but because I so full-heartedly agree with it.

You have much to learn about freedom of speech. Both Harry Reid and I enjoy that right and we've both exercised it. What the right doesn't give either one of us is the freedom from the consequences. In my case, it's ignoring the partisanship on NSG, his should be far more serious.
Partisanship? What about, and I quote:

"I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost."

Are Republicans, both here and in the Senate not 'partisan' too, then?

Fine, Saudi Arabia and Lothlorien. :p

A liking for white robes, an autocratic ruling family, a longing for the glory days of the past, and a barely concealed hatred for those who are supposed to be their allies?

Hey, Myrmidonisia, I assume from what you'e posted here that when Clinton was President you supported all of his decisions and our millitary actions in Somalia and the Balkans, right? I mean, otherwise you by your own definition comitted treason.


Just thought I should point that out.

Okay, what about "Antartida and Lothlorien"? :p

A remote, unspoilt environ, inaccessable to all but a few, closely associated with the power of water, and protected by a plethora of measures designed to keep outsiders away?

Up until now, Jane Fonda has been the only person to commit an indisputable act of treason in my lifetime

Oh well, since it's so indisputable, I guess you can point out the indisputable legal judgement that it so.

You can't.

Because it's not indisputable. As usual, you start off with your trolling on the wrong foot - the one in your mouth.

. It appears we have another candidate, however, in the Senate Majority Leader, Mr. Harry Reid. Thursday, Reid stated (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070420/D8OK1PE03.html)that the war in Iraq is "lost".

Why would I even think such a political statement is treason?

Because you're a troll? Just my guess. I'm sure you have several other, equally wrong, justifications.

First, I've been where our troops are. I was lucky and Desert Storm was a popular war. I can easily imagine the erosion of morale when the Stars and Stripes starts reporting the lack of faith that our national leaders have in them.

It's funny, you know - you don't give a shit about what Democrats say, but apparently if you're in active service, what they say will "erode your morale."

I find this inconsistency to be quite telling.

Second, as the President said shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

And he is wrong. Just like you.

Anyone who says something that puts a smile on the faces of those Islamic terrorists who are trying to kill our troops isn't with us. There's a word for people like that.

..."reasonable."


I am absolutely certain that more soldiers will die as a result of Reid's treasonous words.

Well, if those soldiers are as weak-willed, ignorant, hostile and bigoted as you, I can't say I'm going to weep for them.

But you're free to, of course. Because you're so sensitive.


The proper place for Harry Reid is not at the head of the Senate, but in prison.

I think that's the best place for you, actually. You seem to enjoy pointless violence. I bet you could get a whole lot of bitches.

Up until now, Jane Fonda has been the only person to commit an indisputable act of treason in my lifetime. It appears we have another candidate, however, in the Senate Majority Leader, Mr. Harry Reid. Thursday, Reid stated (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070420/D8OK1PE03.html)that the war in Iraq is "lost".

Why would I even think such a political statement is treason? First, I've been where our troops are. I was lucky and Desert Storm was a popular war. I can easily imagine the erosion of morale when the Stars and Stripes starts reporting the lack of faith that our national leaders have in them.

Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, said it far better when he said, "I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost."

Second, as the President said shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Anyone who says something that puts a smile on the faces of those Islamic terrorists who are trying to kill our troops isn't with us. There's a word for people like that.

That word is traitor. Dictionary.com has a few definitions for the word. See how you like them:

1. A person who betrays another, a cause or any trust.
2. A person who commits treason by betraying his or her country

I am absolutely certain that more soldiers will die as a result of Reid's treasonous words. As a leader of the Democratic party, this only confirms the commitment the party has shown toward causing our defeat at the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists. Never in my life have I seen a political party more dedicated to our nation's defeat in armed conflict.

The proper place for Harry Reid is not at the head of the Senate, but in prison.

You know, the US constitution has devoted an entire section to deal with so-called "patriots" like you.

Article III

Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

I applaud Mr. Reid for admitting the truth. Letting the troops stay there to die IS TREASON.

The computer is your friend. happiness is mandatory. Failure to be happy is treason.

I applaud Mr. Reid for admitting the truth. Letting the troops stay there to die IS TREASON.

Oh brother.

Up until now, Jane Fonda has been the only person to commit an indisputable act of treason in my lifetime. It appears we have another candidate, however, in the Senate Majority Leader, Mr. Harry Reid. Thursday, Reid stated (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070420/D8OK1PE03.html)that the war in Iraq is "lost".

Why would I even think such a political statement is treason? First, I've been where our troops are. I was lucky and Desert Storm was a popular war. I can easily imagine the erosion of morale when the Stars and Stripes starts reporting the lack of faith that our national leaders have in them.

Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, said it far better when he said, "I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost."

Second, as the President said shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Anyone who says something that puts a smile on the faces of those Islamic terrorists who are trying to kill our troops isn't with us. There's a word for people like that.

That word is traitor. Dictionary.com has a few definitions for the word. See how you like them:

1. A person who betrays another, a cause or any trust.
2. A person who commits treason by betraying his or her country

I am absolutely certain that more soldiers will die as a result of Reid's treasonous words. As a leader of the Democratic party, this only confirms the commitment the party has shown toward causing our defeat at the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists. Never in my life have I seen a political party more dedicated to our nation's defeat in armed conflict.

The proper place for Harry Reid is not at the head of the Senate, but in prison.

Myrmy, it is YOU who are the traitor!

You see, by insisting that we pretend the war in iraq is not lost, you condemn our country to be dragged further down and condemn more of our soldiers to be killed.

You and Jane Fonda are the two great traitors of your generation.

America's enemies want it bogged down in Iraq as long as possible, bleeding ourselves to death. By advocating for the enemy's position, you give him aid and comfort. If you want to help out the cause of our enemies so badly, you should register as a foreign agent with the government, traitor.

You have betrayed the cause of America with your treasonable statements, and you do not belong behind a computer, but in prison.

The computer is your friend. happiness is mandatory. Failure to be happy is treason.

Hot fun for everyone!

If only we lived in the good ole' days where Harry Reid could be called a "communist" and we could be done with it.

We miss you Joe McCarthy.

I consider this another Seal of Approval won. Not because its funny, but because I so full-heartedly agree with it.

Huzzah! I must edit mah sig!

Nothing says Desperation on the face of Bushevism like Myrmi and Corny ramping up their propaganda rants. Hell, The Westborough Batshit Church would be jealous of their ability to ignore reality entirely. If this was the Matrix, there'd be no spoon, no fork, no Iraqnam, whatever they felt like.

Nothing says Desperation on the face of Bushevism like declaring spoken words are more treasonous and damaging to our armed forces than incompent hindsight operations with no exit strategy.

If only we lived in the good ole' days where Harry Reid could be called a "communist" and we could be done with it.

We miss you Joe McCarthy.

Just Photoshop a picture of him in a mosque with Bin Ladin and call him a Muslim Convert. Works just as well if not better.

...Speaking your mind is not treason.



Ever.

Even if a government of pigs and kangaroo courts puts you on trial, and call it treason and worse, it is never, ever, treason. No matter what.

The original post is partisan idiocy, and I shouldn't even bother with this thread, but I am bored and thought I might as well respond.

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

This choice is becoming increasingly difficult, and now I pretty much have to choose based on which one is most likely to kill me if I disagree with them.

So I will agree with the greatest extortionists in history and declare the Second War of Iraqi Aggression to be a joyous victory. Long live the US Government and all George Bush stands for!

That word is traitor. Dictionary.com has a few definitions for the word. See how you like them:

1. A person who betrays another, a cause or any trust.
2. A person who commits treason by betraying his or her country

You need to seriously examine the original causes of this country and the trusts upon which it was founded. Only a "traitor" can say that they are imbodied in the Iraq War or this administration.

Actually, in the face of Myrmi's deafening silence, I think I have his true feelings figured out. He doesn't think it is treason to disagree with the President; he thinks it's treason to disagree with him.

Kind of sad, really.

Actually, in the face of Myrmi's deafening silence, I think I have his true feelings figured out. He doesn't think it is treason to disagree with the President; he thinks it's treason to disagree with him.

Kind of sad, really.

Nice!

Do you guys see why I dislike the state of Georgia so much? Myr is just one out of millions. :p

Actually, in the face of Myrmi's deafening silence, I think I have his true feelings figured out. He doesn't think it is treason to disagree with the President; he thinks it's treason to disagree with him.

Kind of sad, really.

But since he always agrees with the President, what's the difference?

But since he always agrees with the President, what's the difference?

Well, as I asked him earlier (and he never responded) unless he agreed with Clinton while he was President, then Mrymi is guilty of treason.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So, clearly, Myrm, the most treasonous one here is you, for trying to undermine the Constitution. Though, even that couldn't get you convicted of treason, since the constitutional definition was already posted.

I think you should read up on that document that makes this country worth defending before you throw the word "traitor" around at anyone who disagrees with you and Bush.

Do you guys see why I dislike the state of Georgia so much? Myr is just one out of millions. :p

Are you in GA too?

Well, as I asked him earlier (and he never responded) unless he agreed with Clinton while he was President, then Mrymi is guilty of treason.

It's a shame that's just the thing his sort either glosses over, or dismisses out of hand. Well-played nonetheless, Maineiacs. I know I've been itching to point out the inconsistency of the "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" quotation in light of the release of Luis Posada Carriles (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6573731.stm). Evidently there's no trouble with being a terrorist in George Bush's America provided you're George Bush's kind of terrorist.

*coughs*

I consider myself to be a democrat but I SUPPORT the troops and do not feel the war is lost. However saying you believe the war is lost doesn't mean you don't support the troops, it is merely stating the your current opion ofd how your country is doing in a war. Washing might admit he lost a battle in the revolution but he never betrayed his troops by admitting show. Republicans tend to stereotype democrats and vice versa. It is NOT treason or EVER will be. I don't know how you can say so. he loves this country as much as you and me. He wants what is best for us and feels taking certain strategys and ideas is right for us. Wheteher he be wrong or right it isn't treason. Besides that just violates the first amendment to say someones opion is treason.

1st admendment, read it, its very nice.

When truths like this one are treasonous, every decent and honest person has a moral obligation to be a traitor.

...Speaking your mind is not treason.



Ever.

Even if a government of pigs and kangaroo courts puts you on trial, and call it treason and worse, it is never, ever, treason. No matter what.

Thank you for getting it right (unless you directly threaten the United States and its people or something similar, plus all the right requirements for traesn like 2 witnesses and bla bla bla)

Do you guys see why I dislike the state of Georgia so much? Myr is just one out of millions. :p

State of Georgia heavily republican. Said heavily republican state was part of the Confedercy ( as are many republican states around in 1863. Just thought I'd point that out. :D

I consider myself to be a democrat but I SUPPORT the troops and do not feel the war is lost. However saying you believe the war is lost doesn't mean you don't support the troops, it is merely stating the your current opion ofd how your country is doing in a war. Washing might admit he lost a battle in the revolution but he never betrayed his troops by admitting show. Republicans tend to stereotype democrats and vice versa. It is NOT treason or EVER will be. I don't know how you can say so. he loves this country as much as you and me. He wants what is best for us and feels taking certain strategys and ideas is right for us. Wheteher he be wrong or right it isn't treason. Besides that just violates the first amendment to say someones opion is treason.

1st admendment, read it, its very nice.You're right.

It's not lost. Yet.

It's just not winnable.



Time to try to salvage a tie...;)

Jane Fonda is an actor if you are talking about those husband and wife 'commies' that were put to death in the 50's because they sold secrets to the Soviets, I think they were named someone else

You're right.

It's not lost. Yet.

It's just not winnable.

Time to try to salvage a tie...;)

I don't feel its lost. I feel there is no war. We supposedly 'won' the war some years ago according to President Bush. Remember that big speech on the aircraft carrier? Well, we're securing the country just like Germany and Japan after WWII, and we spent YEARS there. So technically you can't just give up but in the words of Bush again, we can't stay there indefinetly.:eek:

God, Bush contridicts himself soooo much its hard to tell what he means when. We will leave eventually but I would crack down hard and give it another year. In this type of situation you can't just pick up and leave and expect everything to settle itself out.

Jane Fonda is an actor if you are talking about those husband and wife 'commies' that were put to death in the 50's because they sold secrets to the Soviets, I think they were named someone elseThe OP was refering to Miss Fonda's visit to North Vietnam during the Vietnam war where she was photographed with a NVA anti-aircraft battery crew and their weapon.

She was an outspoken anti-war activist then. Many considered her actions traitorous (and obviously still do), although they sort of stretch the definition. Although she obviously visited North Vietnam and denounced the US led war, there is no evidence that she actually gave aide, or disclosed any useful information to the North Vietnamese. Her detractors say being photographed smiling with soldiers who would likely be shooting at american airman is enough 'aide and comfort' to the ememy to consider her (if not convict her as) a traitor.

I don't feel its lost. I feel there is no war. We supposedly 'won' the war some years ago according to President Bush. Remember that big speech on the aircraft carrier? Well, we're securing the country just like Germany and Japan after WWII, and we spent YEARS there. So technically you can't just give up but in the words of Bush again, we can't stay there indefinetly.:eek:

God, Bush contridicts himself soooo much its hard to tell what he means when. We will leave eventually but I would crack down hard and give it another year. In this type of situation you can't just pick up and leave and expect everything to settle itself out.With very few exeptions the shooting was over during our post war occupations of the countries you mentioned. And the long occupations were more for strategic reasons in the budding cold war than for rebuilding puposes.

Thank you for getting it right (unless you directly threaten the United States and its people or something similar, plus all the right requirements for traesn like 2 witnesses and bla bla bla)

Well, yeah. Obviously it's like the difference between being angry and being in a lynch mob.

Her detractors say being photographed smiling with soldiers who would likely be shooting at american airman is enough 'aide and comfort' to the ememy to consider her (if not convict her as) a traitor.

of course, these same people have a bunch of other crazy notions, so it's probably best to just laugh at them

Jane Fonda is an actor if you are talking about those husband and wife 'commies' that were put to death in the 50's because they sold secrets to the Soviets, I think they were named someone else

The Rosenburgs are an entirely different case than Jane Fonda. The Rosenburgs were clearly commiting acts of treason, Fonda was borderline. Myrm is just trying to kick up a shit storm.

Myrm is just trying to kick up a shit storm.
And failing miserably, by the looks of it, or at the very least, it was a shitstorm he wasn't expecting. According to this Washington Post Poll (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_041607.html?hpid=topnews), 51% believe the US is going to lose the Iraq War. 53% say we're losing right now. Does that mean Myrmidonisia thinks that more than half the US population is treasonous?

Does that mean Myrmidonisia thinks that more than half the US population is treasonous?

quite possibly - think of the political benefits of executing the saner half of the public for treason

And failing miserably, by the looks of it, or at the very least, it was a shitstorm he wasn't expecting. According to this Washington Post Poll (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_041607.html?hpid=topnews), 51% believe the US is going to lose the Iraq War. 53% say we're losing right now. Does that mean Myrmidonisia thinks that more than half the US population is treasonous?

Unfortunately, few of those people have ever been to Iraq. They get all their news from reporters who sit in the GZ and get second hand stories. They don't have a clue what is happening and therefore their opinion means precisely nothing.

His comments were about as irresponsible as it gets. He thinks that he can say whatever he wants and that it won't have real consequences. Recruiting will suffer because of it and tt will be on the terrorists websites as propaganda soon enough. Americans will die as a result of his careless words.

Unfortunately, few of those people have ever been to Iraq. They get all their news from reporters who sit in the GZ and get second hand stories. They don't have a clue what is happening and therefore their opinion means precisely nothing.

I've never been to Virginia Tech, does that mean I can't form an opinion about what happened? Because god forbid we ever even think about things we haven't seen. Jeesh.

And failing miserably, by the looks of it, or at the very least, it was a shitstorm he wasn't expecting. According to this Washington Post Poll (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_041607.html?hpid=topnews), 51% believe the US is going to lose the Iraq War. 53% say we're losing right now. Does that mean Myrmidonisia thinks that more than half the US population is treasonous?

If I know him, he thinks the Washington Post is treasonous for reporting it.

Unfortunately, few of those people have ever been to Iraq. They get all their news from reporters who sit in the GZ and get second hand stories. They don't have a clue what is happening and therefore their opinion means precisely nothing.

His comments were about as irresponsible as it gets. He thinks that he can say whatever he wants and that it won't have real consequences. Recruiting will suffer because of it and tt will be on the terrorists websites as propaganda soon enough. Americans will die as a result of his careless words.

That's bullshit. The Iraqi insurgents don't need to hear from people over here to be excited about their prospects. And more Americans will die because of Bush's fucked up policies and the people like you who enable him than will ever die from what Harry Reid said. Never forget that--Bush put soldiers over there based on a lie, and people like you kept him in office in 2004, so that blood is on all your hands. Not mine. Not Reid's. Yours. Don't you dare try to pawn this off on anyone else.

That's bullshit. The Iraqi insurgents don't need to hear from people over here to be excited about their prospects. And more Americans will die because of Bush's fucked up policies and the people like you who enable him than will ever die from what Harry Reid said. Never forget that--Bush put soldiers over there based on a lie, and people like you kept him in office in 2004, so that blood is on all your hands. Not mine. Not Reid's. Yours. Don't you dare try to pawn this off on anyone else.

Do you really believe that shit? You don't think insurgents get excited about the pessimism of some Americans? I'll see if I'm allowed to get an english translation of a few up here but I doubt it. In any case they use this shit to no end. When times are hard there is nothing better than your enemy saying that you are winning. More Americans will die completing their worthy mission. More Americans will unnecessarily die b/c of these comments. Congress voted to allow U.S. troops to invade Iraq. The war was completely legal. I didn't vote in 2004, I was in A-stan and was too busy to fill out an absentee ballot. So no, I didn't keep him in office.

Unfortunately, few of those people have ever been to Iraq. They get all their news from reporters who sit in the GZ and get second hand stories. They don't have a clue what is happening and therefore their opinion means precisely nothing.

Hang on there just a second.

Wasn't it on exactly this basis that the president of your country launched a war on Iraq?


Twice.

I've never been to Virginia Tech, does that mean I can't form an opinion about what happened? Because god forbid we ever even think about things we haven't seen. Jeesh.
Did reporters get their facts based on shady second hand reports? Is a school shooting as complicated as a 4gw? No. Take a seat.

Do you really believe that shit? You don't think insurgents get excited about the pessimism of some Americans? I'll see if I'm allowed to get an english translation of a few up here but I doubt it. In any case they use this shit to no end. When times are hard there is nothing better than your enemy saying that you are winning. More Americans will die completing their worthy mission. More Americans will unnecessarily die b/c of these comments. Congress voted to allow U.S. troops to invade Iraq. The war was completely legal. I didn't vote in 2004, I was in A-stan and was too busy to fill out an absentee ballot. So no, I didn't keep him in office.

You still defend him, don't you? Then you share the guilt.

Hang on there just a second.

Wasn't it on exactly this basis that the president of your country launched a war on Iraq?


Twice.

No, he went to war based on intelligence reports from the intelligence agencies of several nations. And I wasn't aware that Bush '43 went to war in Iraq twice. If you are saying that the Gulf War wasn't justified then there is just no use in talking to you.

Are you in GA too?

No, thank somebody's god.

No, he went to war based on intelligence reports from the intelligence agencies of several nations. And I wasn't aware that Bush '43 went to war in Iraq twice. If you are saying that the Gulf War wasn't justified then there is just no use in talking to you.

I'm saying it wasn't justified and it wasn't necessary, and I think it's been proven many times over that the justifications given for the war were bullshit, and that the administration deliberately ignored people inside the government who questioned those justifications. But you won't want to hear any of that, because it's inconvenient for you to have to actually think any of this shit through. It's easier to call people who disagree with you traitors or irresponsible or claim that they're going to get US soldiers killed.

Did reporters get their facts based on shady second hand reports? Is a school shooting as complicated as a 4gw? No. Take a seat.

So the brave folks who are embedded aren't allowed to form opinions? The ones who get shot, and hurt, and come home in body bags? Okay, not the ones in body bags, but the question still stands. The young lady who was kidnapped and held by insurgents? Is she allowed to hold an opinion about her captors? Please, elucidate.

You still defend him, don't you? Then you share the guilt.

He's not here to defend himself. He deserves somebody to defend him just like anyone else. And yes, I understand the weight of war. Unlike you apparently who thinks that your party getting elected is more important than victory and the lives of thousands of people.

So the brave folks who are embedded aren't allowed to form opinions? The ones who get shot, and hurt, and come home in body bags? Okay, not the ones in body bags, but the question still stands. The young lady who was kidnapped and held by insurgents? Is she allowed to hold an opinion about her captors? Please, elucidate.

Yes she is. But she accounts for <1% of the reporting. And no, being embedded doesn't equal being brave. In fact it can be quite the opposite.

He's not here to defend himself. He deserves somebody to defend him just like anyone else. And yes, I understand the weight of war. Unlike you apparently who thinks that your party getting elected is more important than victory and the lives of thousands of people.

Fuck you. I'm busting my ass to get those thousands of people home in one fucking piece, instead of leaving them in the middle of a goddamn civil war that we shouldn't be involved in in the first goddamn place. You think this is about partisanship? This is about my fraternity brother who's in Iraq for the third time now, a guy I want to be able to have a beer with again one day. This is about my student who came back last semester and who wonders whether he ought to sign up for classes this fall because he figures he'll be sent back. Don't you dare fucking suggest that I'm in this for any political gain. I was against this war when it was at 70% popularity, and I'm against it now that it's at 60+% unpopularity. Don't you dare, don't you fucking dare suggest that I'm more concerned about party than I am about the lives of soldiers. If I had any say about it, they'd never have been there in the first place.

I'm saying it wasn't justified and it wasn't necessary, and I think it's been proven many times over that the justifications given for the war were bullshit, and that the administration deliberately ignored people inside the government who questioned those justifications. But you won't want to hear any of that, because it's inconvenient for you to have to actually think any of this shit through. It's easier to call people who disagree with you traitors or irresponsible or claim that they're going to get US soldiers killed.

It was a mistake but it was justified. Even if you have to go to the violations of the '91 treaty it was justified. But you'd rather just believe that Bush is evil. It's easier to say we lost and quit and condemn hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to a future of death than stick it out.

Yes she is. But she accounts for <1% of the reporting. And no, being embedded doesn't equal being brave. In fact it can be quite the opposite.

Not answering the question. And if I haven't been to Iraq, but read a good deal about what happens, from multiple sources, does that, in your cosmology, permit me to hold an opinion? Or would I have to go over there to do so? Or would I have to throw myself into the middle of a firefight to be able to do so?

Not answering the question. And if I haven't been to Iraq, but read a good deal about what happens, from multiple sources, does that, in your cosmology, permit me to hold an opinion? Or would I have to go over there to do so? Or would I have to throw myself into the middle of a firefight to be able to do so?

To your question of whether it allows you to have an opinion, yes. Whether it is an opinion that is worth anything that is a different story altogether.

To your question of whether it allows you to have an opinion, yes. Whether it is an opinion that is worth anything that is a different story altogether.

Gee, thanks. I feel so much better, knowing I have your permission. I'll go right out and fully support every boneheaded decision our administration makes. :rolleyes:

Fuck you.
Good one.
I'm busting my ass to get those thousands of people home in one fucking piece, instead of leaving them in the middle of a goddamn civil war that we shouldn't be involved in in the first goddamn place.
You're not busting anything. You are sitting at home whining about nothing. You don't care about what those thousands of people want or millions of innocent civilians.
You think this is about partisanship?
I know that this is about partisanship.
This is about my fraternity brother who's in Iraq for the third time now, a guy I want to be able to have a beer with again one day. This is about my student who came back last semester and who wonders whether he ought to sign up for classes this fall because he figures he'll be sent back.
You mean people worthy of the air that they breathe?
Don't you dare fucking suggest that I'm in this for any political gain. I was against this war when it was at 70% popularity, and I'm against it now that it's at 60+% unpopularity. Don't you dare, don't you fucking dare suggest that I'm more concerned about party than I am about the lives of soldiers. If I had any say about it, they'd never have been there in the first place.
Of course you're not in it for political gain. You have nothing to gain. However the good senator is in it for that reason. If anybody had the choice we wouldn't have gone. But we did, and now we need to deal with it. Not be in denial.

Gee, thanks. I feel so much better, knowing I have your permission. I'll go right out and fully support every boneheaded decision our administration makes. :rolleyes:

Who said that you have to support their decisions? All that you are obligated to do is not aid and abet the enemy.

USMC, you're pathetic. You don't say a peep about this underfunded, unjust, unacceptable quagmire the Administration is, essentially, killing you with, and you'll complain about words now? You're claiming people saying they don't believe this war is working will make soldiers die? This is like friggin' Peter Pan! What are you, Tinkerbell? In that case, if I say I don't believe you exist, will you please go away?

USMC, you're pathetic.
Good one.
You don't say a peep about this underfunded, unjust, unacceptable quagmire the Administration is, essentially, killing you with, and you'll complain about words now?
Unjust- You know thats not correct. You know that it would stand in a court. If necessary it is justified by Saddam breaking the '91 ceasefire.
Underfunded- Both sides are to blame for this.
Quagmire- Not even close.
Killing you- I'm alive, no?
You're claiming people saying they don't believe this war is working will make soldiers die? This is like friggin' Peter Pan! What are you, Tinkerbell? In that case, if I say I don't believe you exist, will you please go away?
Yes, people will die b/c of his words. I know it's hard to believe that your words have serious repercussions but you're going to have to get used to the idea.

Mao Zedong put it best when he said "The enemy advances, we retreat; the enemy camps, we harass; the enemy tires, we attack; the enemy retreats, we pursue." We invaded, the people we wanted to get fled; we set up camp after taking out the hostile government intending to repair the damage done, they harassed; now our troops are tiring and the terrorist attacks are getting more serious. If we retreat now they will follow. The Chinese followed the Japanese, the South followed the North, the Russians followed the French; history is full of examples of this behavior of following a retreating army. Even if it kills you. And these hostiles are not afraid of dying.

As costly as finishing the war may be, losing it would cost even more.

Who said that you have to support their decisions? All that you are obligated to do is not aid and abet the enemy.

Aid and abet the enemy? Dude, no one in the US could have done a better job of aiding and abetting the enemy--you know, Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda--than George W. Bush did when he decided it was more important to go into Iraq, which had no connection to 9/11 or al Qaeda, than it was to finish the job in Afghanistan.

Yes, people will die b/c of his words. I know it's hard to believe that your words have serious repercussions but you're going to have to get used to the idea.

Okay, Tinkerbell. I don't believe in soldiers. And I'm not clapping to keep you alive either.

If the situation wasn't CRAP to begin with, mayhaps Reid wouldn't feel the need to point out that fact. This argument you try to use is the same argument Saddam once used. Funny. Here was I thinking you were fighting him.

Mao Zedong put it best when he said "The enemy advances, we retreat; the enemy camps, we harass; the enemy tires, we attack; the enemy retreats, we pursue." We invaded, the people we wanted to get fled; we set up camp after taking out the hostile government intending to repair the damage done, they harassed; now our troops are tiring and the terrorist attacks are getting more serious. If we retreat now they will follow. The Chinese followed the Japanese, the South followed the North, the Russians followed the French; history is full of examples of this behavior of following a retreating army. Even if it kills you. And these hostiles are not afraid of dying.

As costly as finishing the war may be, losing it would cost even more.
Are you suggesting we have to worry about an Iraqi invasion of the US? Seriously? And which south followed which north? In Vietnam, the north took over the country, and in the US, the south got its ass handed to it.

And I wasn't aware that Bush '43 went to war in Iraq twice.

What is "Bush '43"?

What is "Bush '43"?

Not the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything? :D

Aid and abet the enemy? Dude, no one in the US could have done a better job of aiding and abetting the enemy--you know, Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda--than George W. Bush did when he decided it was more important to go into Iraq, which had no connection to 9/11 or al Qaeda, than it was to finish the job in Afghanistan.

Al-Qaeda is now splintered and has to spread it's assets in two conflicts. Al-Qaeda has now pushed it's good will too far and now Sunnis across the Muslim world are rejecting them. Even if it was unintended it is working.

Al-Qaeda is now splintered and has to spread it's assets in two conflicts. Al-Qaeda has now pushed it's good will too far and now Sunnis across the Muslim world are rejecting them. Even if it was unintended it is working.

That's like looking at a broken clock at precisely the time it's correct and saying it's working. It's not only wrong, it gives you a false sense of just how fucked up the clock is.

Al-Qaeda is now splintered and has to spread it's assets in two conflicts. Al-Qaeda has now pushed it's good will too far and now Sunnis across the Muslim world are rejecting them. Even if it was unintended it is working.

They didn't have to split. Their recruiting went through the roof when the invasion happened, and again when Abu Ghraib happened and again each time Bush did something stupid. And you're claiming REID is harming you. Now, let's try it once again.

"I don't believe in soldiers." Did anyone of your base spontaneously combust yet?

If the situation wasn't CRAP to begin with, mayhaps Reid wouldn't feel the need to point out that fact.
He wouldn't feel the need to point out that fact if he knew it was false. Or maybe he does know and is in denial.
This argument you try to use is the same argument Saddam once used. Funny. Here was I thinking you were fighting him.
And what argument is that? That words aren't meaningless?

That's like looking at a broken clock at precisely the time it's correct and saying it's working. It's not only wrong, it gives you a false sense of just how fucked up the clock is.

That is the most fucked up analogy I have ever seen.

He wouldn't feel the need to point out that fact if he knew it was false. Or maybe he does know and is in denial.

The fact is true. The Administration fucked this war up. And you're STILL lashing out at those who dare criticize, like the soldier of a dictator.

No, he went to war based on intelligence reports from the intelligence agencies of several nations.

...sold to the public the first time round on the back of the lies told by a 15 year old girl using the pseudonym 'Nayirah', and sold to the public the second time round on factually incorrect statements about the extent/existence of the WMD program, no?

That is the most fucked up analogy I have ever seen.

What do you expect? It's describing an unnecessarily fucked up situation, all thanks to George W Bush and the people who continue to support him. Like you.

They didn't have to split. Their recruiting went through the roof when the invasion happened, and again when Abu Ghraib happened and again each time Bush did something stupid. And you're claiming REID is harming you. Now, let's try it once again.
Yes it did, and it will go up again w/ these comments. Reid knows he is harming us b/c of the overwhelming number of e-mails that he received from military personnel.


"I don't believe in soldiers." Did anyone of your base spontaneously combust yet?
I'm not a soldier.

Yes it did, and it will go up again w/ these comments. Reid knows he is harming us b/c of the overwhelming number of e-mails that he received from military personnel.

Ah, the same old "if you criticize you harm us" stance that kept Saddam in power. You're not unlike him in any way, shape or form.

I'm not a soldier.

That's right, you're Tinkerbell.

...sold to the public the first time round on the back of the lies told by a 15 year old girl using the pseudonym 'Nayirah', and sold to the public the second time round on factually incorrect statements about the extent/existence of the WMD program, no?

And stovepiped intel that other US agencies knew wasn't reliable and had said wasn't reliable. And "Curveball." And the Office of Special Planning. Et cetera. Et cetera. Et cetera.

You fail at logic.

You're claiming Reid "harms the troops" while at the same time claiming sending the troops into a "second front" that distracted them from the real enemy helps them. You're in no position to claim to know jack shit about logic.

What do you expect? It's describing an unnecessarily fucked up situation, all thanks to George W Bush and the people who continue to support him. Like you.

You fail at logic.

You fail at logic.

I fail? You're the one accusing a Senator of treason and of aiding and abetting the enemy because he told the fucking truth. And I fail? Please, Mister "I'm not a soldier but I have a name that will make people think I am."

The fact is true. The Administration fucked this war up. And you're STILL lashing out at those who dare criticize, like the soldier of a dictator.

No, like the Marine who knows that they are wrong.

No, like the Marine who knows that they are wrong.


I'm not a soldier.
Are you saying that Marines aren't soldiers? Traitor. :rolleyes:

Can you deny that criticism hurt him?

Yes. I, and anyone sane, can.

If you want to hurt the U.S. and Iraq then go ahead but if you have any conscience then you won't.

I'm not from the US. I owe your troops nothing.

Ah, the same old "if you criticize you harm us" stance that kept Saddam in power. You're not unlike him in any way, shape or form.
Can you deny that criticism hurt him? If you want to hurt the U.S. and Iraq then go ahead but if you have any conscience then you won't.

No, like the Marine who knows that they are wrong.

Then why do you employ rhetoric USED BY dictators if you're not like them?

Can you deny that criticism hurt him? If you want to hurt the U.S. and Iraq then go ahead but if you have any conscience then you won't.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Theodore Roosevelt said that, and he was a greater man than you can ever hope to be. And he said that during a war. So back the fuck off.

Hey, USMC leathernecks2, how about we examine a hypothetical scenario here for a moment:

- imagine that somehow the US got into a completely different war and was losing it, and someone announced publicly that "we are losing this war".

Would that, in this hypothetical instance, factually true statement still be considered to be treason by yourself?

Are you saying that Marines aren't soldiers? Traitor. :rolleyes:

'like' != 'is'

What is "Bush '43"?

he means the current asshole - we're on president number 43

he means the current asshole - we're on president number 43

Ah, okay. If he'd actually read what I wrote he might just have noticed that I never claimed that GWB had gone to war in Iraq twice. I didn't just use the phrase 'your president' by accident.

If he'd actually read what I wrote

you're so demanding

Are you suggesting we have to worry about an Iraqi invasion of the US? Seriously? And which south followed which north? In Vietnam, the north took over the country, and in the US, the south got its ass handed to it.
Not an Iraqi invasion but another attack like the bombings in Spain. And though the South was at a disadvantage from the start the Confederate Army had won a few by the time they marched into Gettysburg looking for shoes. The Union army had retreated after decisive victories by Lee, who for some insane reason went on the offensive and made a push northward. And it thankfully cost him everything. But the point is that he pursued his target after winning a few battles.

Now onto this whole criticism business. It is very easy to Criticize. Fun too. And it is the protected right of all Americans. BUT! It can bug a lot of people and the only reason you have that right is because a military protects it and you from anyone and anything that may try to take it away.

Also, there is no "your president" and "my president". There is only "a president", the president of the nation and all people who reside within it. You may not have voted for him but he's still the C in C. If someone, anyone is elected to that office they become the president whether you like it or not and those that fail to get win the popularity contest are not the president.

And finally, I'd like to close with a few words about...democracy. 2 cougars and a deer voting on what's for lunch.:p

Also, there is no "your president" and "my president". There is only "a president", the president of the nation and all people who reside within it. You may not have voted for him but he's still the C in C. If someone, anyone is elected to that office they become the president whether you like it or not and those that fail to win the popularity contest are not the president.Apparently you don't remember the 2000 election...

Apparently you don't remember the 2000 election...

...Even though more people voted for the other candidate...

In Florida, too. And we all know what happened there.

Can you deny that criticism hurt him? If you want to hurt the U.S. and Iraq then go ahead but if you have any conscience then you won't.

You seem to oppose the very things that this country is built upon, the things we fought a revolution for (well, except not wanting to pay taxes...probably all for that part). You don't have any intention of defending the American ideal so we are left to assume that you're in the military to either get your rocks off or for a chance to kill brown people with impunity.

Either option I am glad that you are not representative of the many people that make up the armed forces. It's too bad that they're stretched so thin or someone such as yourself who is so clearly opposed to American ideals would be weeded out of service.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Theodore Roosevelt said that, and he was a greater man than you can ever hope to be. And he said that during a war. So back the fuck off.
Nice quote.

Given that Jane Fonda was never charged with, convicted of, or sentenced for treason I would have to say that legally she has not been proved to be guilty of this crime, which if memory serves, can be punishable by death.

Do I think what she did despicable? Yes.
Guilty of treason? She'd have to be tried first -- and the US government apparently has declined to do so.

He thinks that he can say whatever he wants and that it won't have real consequences. Recruiting will suffer because of it and tt will be on the terrorists websites as propaganda soon enough. Americans will die as a result of his careless words.

Yes, he can express his opinion. First Amendment guarentees it.
Recruiting is suffering because any young person hitting the age of 18 with half a brain may have spent half their life with this war as their reality.

"Do I want to join the military when we've been at war for seven years? Um, let me think about that."

Unless you want to bring back the draft, you'd better get used to recruitment dropping off as parents, relatives, and prospective servicemen take a long hard look and pass.

Then why do you employ rhetoric USED BY dictators if you're not like them?

You take shits, Saddam took shits. Are you a dictator?

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Theodore Roosevelt said that, and he was a greater man than you can ever hope to be. And he said that during a war. So back the fuck off.

He didn't criticize the president. He said we lost the war and there was no hope.

Hey, USMC leathernecks2, how about we examine a hypothetical scenario here for a moment:

- imagine that somehow the US got into a completely different war and was losing it, and someone announced publicly that "we are losing this war".

Would that, in this hypothetical instance, factually true statement still be considered to be treason by yourself?

If it was a public statement broadcast to our enemy. Treason. If it was said in a private meeting discussing strategy. Healthy.

You seem to oppose the very things that this country is built upon, the things we fought a revolution for (well, except not wanting to pay taxes...probably all for that part). You don't have any intention of defending the American ideal so we are left to assume that you're in the military to either get your rocks off or for a chance to kill brown people with impunity.

Either option I am glad that you are not representative of the many people that make up the armed forces. It's too bad that they're stretched so thin or someone such as yourself who is so clearly opposed to American ideals would be weeded out of service.

I am in the military to serve the country. Reids statements get in the way. I'm not representative?

http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14152

That is representative of the best we've got.

Yes, he can express his opinion. First Amendment guarentees it.
Can you also go tell the enemy what to do? Can you go tell them that they are doing a damn good job and to keep it up. We'll leave soon enough? There are limits to everything.

Recruiting is suffering because any young person hitting the age of 18 with half a brain may have spent half their life with this war as their reality.

"Do I want to join the military when we've been at war for seven years? Um, let me think about that."
Well we did all of the recruitment goals this year but you wouldn't want to hear that. If recruiting was suffering before it makes it okay to hurt recruitment further?

You're claiming Reid "harms the troops" while at the same time claiming sending the troops into a "second front" that distracted them from the real enemy helps them. You're in no position to claim to know jack shit about logic.

Bush sent us to do a job. Reid tells the enemy that they can win. Don't see the difference? There is no hope.

He didn't criticize the president. He said we lost the war and there was no hope.But in his context he was critizing the administrations policies and the effectiveness of the current 'surge'.

BTW Is this quote treasonous? "If the definition of success in Iraq -- or anywhere -- is `no suicide bombers,' we'll never be successful,"

Are you saying that Marines aren't soldiers? Traitor. :rolleyes:

That doesn't make any sense.

Unfortunately, few of those people have ever been to Iraq. They get all their news from reporters who sit in the GZ and get second hand stories. They don't have a clue what is happening and therefore their opinion means precisely nothing.
Actually, since their opinons shape policy, it matters quite a lot. Welcome to the democracy.

His comments were about as irresponsible as it gets. He thinks that he can say whatever he wants and that it won't have real consequences. Recruiting will suffer because of it and tt will be on the terrorists websites as propaganda soon enough. Americans will die as a result of his careless words.
That's just silly. Nobody will die because of these words - they will die because of the failed policies and flawed strategies of the US government and the US military. Simple as that. Reid is not in any way, shape or form culpable.
Unjust- You know thats not correct. You know that it would stand in a court. If necessary it is justified by Saddam breaking the '91 ceasefire.
Nope. Illegal war as well as unjustified, and a serious breach of international law at that. It wwould never stand up in a court.
Al-Qaeda is now splintered and has to spread it's assets in two conflicts. Al-Qaeda has now pushed it's good will too far and now Sunnis across the Muslim world are rejecting them. Even if it was unintended it is working.
Al-Qaeda was pretty much shunned by the muslim world before this started - it's actually the invasion of Iraq that gave them a world wide boost. It was playing right into their hands.
Can you also go tell the enemy what to do? Can you go tell them that they are doing a damn good job and to keep it up. We'll leave soon enough? There are limits to everything.
And this isn't even close to that limit.

But in his context he was critizing the administraions policies and the effectiveness of the current 'surge'.
No, he told the enemy that they were going to win and all they had to do is wait us out.
BTW Is this quote treasonous? "If the definition of success in Iraq -- or anywhere -- is `no suicide bombers,' we'll never be successful,"
No given the if statement that is a completely true statement and it helps nobody. However it takes the false assumption that that is the definition of success.