NationStates Jolt Archive

If it was a public statement broadcast to our enemy. Treason.

Telling a truth which is apparent to all is treason?

Elephant in the room.

No, he told the enemy that they were going to win and all they had to do is wait us out.The big problem with your statement there is he wasn't addressing the enemy, he was addressing congress.

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.So what is the definition of success?

That doesn't make any sense.
What's all this about you not being a soldier? What about that thread about you being higher ranked than Liuzzo and saying that he had to do his duty by respecting Great Leader?

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.
But he did none of those things, did he? To imply he did is foolish.


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?
Don't tell me what you think I want to hear. It's simple logic, man. You see how many people went off to war, and are being held there past what they signed up for -- some being famously dragged out of retirement -- and you see scandals like what happened at Walter Reed with the treatment of the wounded -- and if you have two active brain cells to rub together, you might get the feeling, if you're not already involved in the military that 1) your efforts will seemingly not be appreciated by those who sent you to fight and 2) the likelihood is that you will be sent to fight because there is such a dearth of new recruits.

Thinking people understand that while being in the military confers great benefits in the form of the GI Bill and specialized training, you've got to survive to use them.

Next you'll be telling us we should indoctrinate all our nation's youth to go join the armed forces -- which is basically what all the commercials, ads in school magazines aimed at teens, and free t-shirts and neck lanyards handed out by recruiters do. Plus unless teens and their parents opt out, their home addresses and phone numbers are handed over to recruiters to contact them.

Please don't pull the pity us, we're hurting card.

A gov't that is capable of governing w/o outside assistance.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but they had one of these before the invasion, no?

The big problem with your statement there is he wasn't addressing the enemy, he was addressing congress.
And yet, for some reason, I have this crazy idea that insurgents and terrorists have ears.
So what is the definition of success?
A gov't that is capable of governing w/o outside assistance. Suicide bombs do nothing to affect a countries ability to govern.

"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.

Back in the old days of American politics, before sound bites, and before Harry Reid, there was debate and dissension about how a certain war was being conducted. A respected senator from Michigan, Arthur Vandenberg, had delivered a message that is appropriate today. This message is especially instructive as the nastiness of the current partisan debate over the war in Iraq divides the country and emboldens the enemy.

Here are Vandenberg's words:

"To me, 'bipartisan foreign policy' means a mutual effort, under our indispensable, two-party system, to unite our official voice at the water's edge so that America speaks with one voice to those who would divide and conquer us and the free world."

Vandenberg went on to say that there should be full, open and honest debate of foreign policy within the country. But the goal of such debate, he said, was not to score political points, but to reach a position of unity that could be presented to the world.

Clearly, if a Senate Majority Leader had stood up in 1942, or 1943, when the war was going badly and said, "We've lost," it would not have been tolerated. I doubt it would have been tolerated by Teddy Roosevelt. It should not be tolerated today. We need to be one America when we deal with an enemy arrayed against us. The Senate _did_ approve the President's actions and until _he_ decides to abandon his power as commander-in-chief, there is no place for Harry Reid to act in that capacity, by making decisions on the conduct or progress of the war.

Harry Reid: The War is lost (!!!!!)
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

...

But did he say something else too? Why yes, yes he did:

I know I was the odd guy out at the White House, but I told him at least what he needed to hear ... I believe the war at this stage can only be won (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070419184534.ileoeb47&show_article=1) diplomatically, politically and economically.

Now put the two together... Treason? Maybe if you're a living in a fantasy world.

But he did none of those things, did he? To imply he did is foolish.
To imply that our enemies can't hear what is said is foolish.


Don't tell me what you think I want to hear. It's simple logic, man. You see how many people went off to war, and are being held there past what they signed up for -- some being famously dragged out of retirement -- and you see scandals like what happened at Walter Reed with the treatment of the wounded -- and if you have two active brain cells to rub together, you might get the feeling, if you're not already involved in the military that 1) your efforts will seemingly not be appreciated by those who sent you to fight and 2) the likelihood is that you will be sent to fight because there is such a dearth of new recruits.
We need to bring people out of retirement b/c recruitment was low b/c people are telling our enemies that they are winning and will win. I await the day that I can get back in the thick of things with anticipation.
Thinking people understand that while being in the military confers great benefits in the form of the GI Bill and specialized training, you've got to survive to use them.
3,500 have died. There are 1.5 million in. 99.8% chance of survival. I like those odds.
Next you'll be telling us we should indoctrinate all our nation's youth to go join the armed forces -- which is basically what all the commercials, ads in school magazines aimed at teens, and free t-shirts and neck lanyards handed out by recruiters do. Plus unless teens and their parents opt out, their home addresses and phone numbers are handed over to recruiters to contact them.

Please don't pull the pity us, we're hurting card.
I don't know how you made that connection but I'm sure there are psychologists who would love to study you.

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

I was actually responding to what you said (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12565540&postcount=226).
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.

Treason early, treason often.

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?We made recruitment goals, true--by lowering those goals from previous years. We didn't make the original goals set two years ago. We made modified goals, just so we could spin the results. The total number of new recruits for the Army, last I heard, were down year over year.

Harry Reid: The War is lost (!!!!!)


...

But did he say something else too? Why yes, yes he did:



Now put the two together... Treason? Maybe if you're a living in a fantasy world.
Those quotes alone show why he is not in charge. I don't know how you are going to conduct diplomacy with a terrorist but apparently he knows how. He said, "this war is lost." End of story.

I was actually responding to what you said (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12565540&postcount=226).

I meant criticize the war effort. Not Bush.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but they had one of these before the invasion, no?

No one is saying that the invasion was a good idea.

No one is saying that the invasion was a good idea.

This is treaonous speech. The terrorists have the internet.

Those quotes alone show why he is not in charge. I don't know how you are going to conduct diplomacy with a terrorist but apparently he knows how. He said, "this war is lost." End of story.
So you truly believe that you can win the war in Iraq by military means alone?

Who are the "enemy" by the way? Who are the terrorists, that you would like to conduct diplomacy with before these comments were made?

Oh, and
Conditions in Iraq get worse by the day. Now we find ourselves policing another nation's civil war. We are less secure from the many threats to our national security than we were when the war began. 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 one wants us to succeed in the Middle East more than I do. But there must be a change of course. Our brave men and women overseas have passed every test with flying colors. They have earned our pride and our praise. More important, they deserve a strategy worthy of their sacrifice.

Still Harry Reid. Same day (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=S4744&position=all).

I meant criticize the war effort. Not Bush.

You can't separate the two. The President is the Commander in Chief, so it would be easy to make the argument that criticism of him is criticism of the war effort. Hell, right wing commentators have been doing that since 20002 in this country. I distinctly remember being called un-American because I dared criticize Dear Leader--in public, in the streets, not just behind this computer screen. (No, I didn't miss that ignorant crack you made a while back.)

But in every war the US has fought, there have been people who have criticized the war effort. Lincoln was constantly getting blasted by his own side in the Civil War. And contrary to Myrmidonisia's claims above about what would have happened in WWII, FDR came in for some major criticism on how he handled the war, both from politicians of other parties and from the press. When Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay, among others, criticized Clinton's handling of the Bosnia situation, I don't remember anyone calling them treasonous, especially not right-wingers.

So Roosevelt's statement still holds true today. The fact that you can't seem to grasp that Reid's statement was not only not treasonous, but was in fact the patriotic duty of a loyal opposition, just shows how little you understand the concept.

Harry Reid: The War is lost (!!!!!)


...

But did he say something else too? Why yes, yes he did:



Now put the two together... Treason? Maybe if you're a living in a fantasy world.
So a diplomatic solution is needed? What can be done diplomatically without a credible "or else" waiting in the wings? By "or else", I mean the possible intervention by a military force. Remarkably, that's where we're at now. We tried several diplomatic solutions and they all failed. Now, we are at the "or else" phase. Should we retreat back to tactics that have already proven inadequate?

And yet, for some reason, I have this crazy idea that insurgents and terrorists have ears.And I have this crazy idea that they already knew that the war in Iraq had deteriorated to a state where any attempt by the US to 'win' by force simply increases resistance. They are, after all there. What they see everyday I'm sure has more impact on them that what some pol says thousands of miles away.
A gov't that is capable of governing w/o outside assistance. Suicide bombs do nothing to affect a countries ability to govern.Seems to me that disbanding the Iraqi army and leaving half a million armed, unemployed, disenfrachised and angry men wandering about might have been counter productive to that goal. But that's just me.

So a diplomatic solution is needed? What can be done diplomatically without a credible "or else" waiting in the wings? By "or else", I mean the possible intervention by a military force. Remarkably, that's where we're at now. We tried several diplomatic solutions and they all failed. Now, we are at the "or else" phase. Should we retreat back to tactics that have already proven inadequate?

We did? We really tried diplomatic solutions? Give me the biggest fucking break. Bush wanted an Iraq war before 9/11, and the second he had permission to use force, that was all he was ever going to do.

So a diplomatic solution is needed? What can be done diplomatically without a credible "or else" waiting in the wings? By "or else", I mean the possible intervention by a military force. Remarkably, that's where we're at now. We tried several diplomatic solutions and they all failed. Now, we are at the "or else" phase. Should we retreat back to tactics that have already proven inadequate?
Heh... The "or else phase" happened before any diplomatic solution was tried. I'm not convinced any real diplomatic or economic effort has even been pursued here. What are you going to do anyway, threaten to invade? Military intervention is already happening, and has been happening since 2003 - is it working?

And really, it's irrelevant for this debate, because the important part here is that Harry Reid say that the war is lost if we don't change our strategy. There is context to his statements that goes overlooked. And the context means: No traitorous words uttered here.

You delusional plonker! Do you honestly believe we are winning in Iraq? We may have a chance in Afghanistan as long as that bunch of Trailer trash Known as the "US Army" does not fuck up . Luckily its the Royal Marines who are doing most of the fighting!

You delusional plonker! Do you honestly believe we are winning in Iraq? We may have a chance in Afghanistan as long as that bunch of Trailer trash Known as the "US Army" does not fuck up . Luckily its the Royal Marines who are doing most of the fighting!
*Backs away slowly*

And this where you provide a source. :)

This is treaonous speech. The terrorists have the internet.

Nope, it does nothing to embolden the enemy.

And I have this crazy idea that they already knew that the war in Iraq had deteriorated to a state where any attempt by the US to 'win' by force simply increases resistance. They are, after all there. What they see everyday I'm sure has more impact on them that what some pol says thousands of miles away.
What they see everyday (them getting their asses handed to them) doesn't affect whether they lose or win. If we leave before the Iraqis are ready determines that.
Seems to me that disbanding the Iraqi army and leaving half a million armed, unemployed, disenfrachised and angry men wandering about might have been counter productive to that goal. But that's just me.
Who said it wasn't?

So you truly believe that you can win the war in Iraq by military means alone?

Who are the "enemy" by the way? Who are the terrorists, that you would like to conduct diplomacy with before these comments were made?

Oh, and
The enemy is those who want to undermine the Iraqi gov't. You can't conduct diplomacy with Al-Qaeda. Strength speaks volume in that part of the world, to them, kindness is a sign of weakness. And what do you mean by military means? If training IA and IP to fight by themselves is military means then in a way yes.

Still Harry Reid. Same day (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=S4744&position=all).
The damage was already done and he was just responding to the e-mails from the U.S. military.

Nope, it does nothing to embolden the enemy.

They told you that, did they?

To criticize Bush's handling of the war is fine. Saying that we lost to the public is not.

Why?

If an enemy was to take comfort in criticism of the handling of the war, shouldn't that also be classified as treason by your criterion?

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'm not doing this any more. This guy is immune to reason, and I don't see the point in wasting my time arguing with him.

But in every war the US has fought, there have been people who have criticized the war effort. Lincoln was constantly getting blasted by his own side in the Civil War. And contrary to Myrmidonisia's claims above about what would have happened in WWII, FDR came in for some major criticism on how he handled the war, both from politicians of other parties and from the press. When Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay, among others, criticized Clinton's handling of the Bosnia situation, I don't remember anyone calling them treasonous, especially not right-wingers.
To criticize Bush's handling of the war is fine. Saying that we lost to the public is not.
So Roosevelt's statement still holds true today. The fact that you can't seem to grasp that Reid's statement was not only not treasonous, but was in fact the patriotic duty of a loyal opposition, just shows how little you understand the concept.

If he had said it in a private meeting on strategy, then that is patriotic duty. Telling the enemy that they are winning is treason.

To criticize Bush's handling of the war is fine. Saying that we lost to the public is not.Because you say so? Fuck that. And the public isn't stupid--as I noted way earlier in this thread, over half the population thinks we've lost, and if you include those who think that this will end with no winner, then you're over 60%. Are we all traitors? Are we?


If he had said it in a private meeting on strategy, then that is patriotic duty. Telling the enemy that they are winning is treason.
You have an extremely fucked up sense of what treason is. And I'm glad that it's not an accurate one, because I wouldn't want to live in a country where your definition is operative. In fact, I can safely say that if I did live in such a place, I'd have taken up arms against the government already. In for a penny, in for a pound.

To imply that our enemies can't hear what is said is foolish.
OH MY GOD! Quick, every in Congress SHUT UP because the enemies might hear you.

Do you even get how ridiculous you sound?



We need to bring people out of retirement b/c recruitment was low b/c people are telling our enemies that they are winning and will win. I await the day that I can get back in the thick of things with anticipation.
They were taking people out of retirement long before Reid said this, and you know it. Please try not to twist the facts to fit your worldview.

When I sign a contract that says, "I will work for you for three years, after which I can do something else," "No you can't, too bad, you're still working for me," is not what I want to hear. Especially when what I get for breaking the contract is jail, and what you get for breaking the contract is to tell me that you're not breaking the contract.

3,500 have died. There are 1.5 million in. 99.8% chance of survival. I like those odds. But not everyone does. Of course, we should expect our kids to march off cheerfully to war and risk life, limb, and mental health.

I don't know how you made that connection but I'm sure there are psychologists who would love to study you.

Very simple. You're complaining about recruitment being hurt. I talked about methods of recruitment being used today. Instead you respond with an ad hominem attack about my mental health. I'm sure there are more pointless insults for you to make because OOORAH!!!! we should all support you because you're in the military and therefore right, and anyone who disagrees obviously is a traitorous mental patient.

There is so much wrong with your argument you can't do anything other than be insulting, can you? Either that or you're ignoring half of what you read or are incapable of understanding it. Me, I think it's the former.

Next you'll be calling me junior, sport, little lady or some other cute little nickname you think makes your gun seem more impressive.

"LOL UR TEH TRAITOR"

"NO IM NOT TEH TRAITOR U R"

That's all I'm hearing from USMC Leathernecks and his internet trollbuddy Myrm.

.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

Fuckin' A, hats off to Harry fuckin' Reid in that case. Young people need to twig to the fact that they're being set up to take a fall for no valid reason at all - by a bunch of old men in suits.

Old men in suits who don't give a flying fuck about them unless there's a camera rolling somewhere within earshot.

Fuckin' A, hats off to Harry fuckin' Reid in that case. Young people need to twig to the fact that they're being set up to take a fall for no valid reason at all - by a bunch of old men in suits.

Old men in suits who don't give a flying fuck about them unless there's a camera rolling somewhere within earshot.

As I said - treason early - treason often. :cool:

The enemy is those who want to undermine the Iraqi gov't. You can't conduct diplomacy with Al-Qaeda. Strength speaks volume in that part of the world, to them, kindness is a sign of weakness.
Prove that last statement.

And what about the shi'a militas, or the sunni militas? Can you conduct diplomacy with them? Like al-Sadr?

And what do you mean by military means? If training IA and IP to fight by themselves is military means then in a way yes.
No, as in killing every terrorist and insurgent in the great state of Iraq.

Training other troops would only embolden the enemy would it not? It sends a message that the US can't shoulder the burden alone, and thus are weak. Advocating training is treason! [/Sarcasm]

The damage was already done and he was just responding to the e-mails from the U.S. military.
Are you kidding me? How much time elapsed between the press conference and the speech in congress?

What they see everyday (them getting their asses handed to them) doesn't affect whether they lose or win. If we leave before the Iraqis are ready determines that. Now that's just fantastical denial. 3 years with no progress and they're getting their asses handed to them? Who is them? The unfortunate Iraqi civilians who seem be paying the highest price in blood? And who continue to flock to the opposition as we make their lives a living hell fighting a war with no real front in their home. The longer we stay the worse it will get.

Ask the Iraqis. They're ready for us to leave already. We've fucked up their country enough.

We did? We really tried diplomatic solutions? Give me the biggest fucking break. Bush wanted an Iraq war before 9/11, and the second he had permission to use force, that was all he was ever going to do.
How many years and how many UN resolutions were ignored? So-called diplomacy with Iraq spanned about a decade with Saddam becoming more and more non-compliant with those resolutions. Resolutions that did permit military action as a final recourse. That's a different kettle of fish, though.

When we go back to Roosevelt and Vandenberg, I don't see any contradictions. I see both asking for honest debate. The fact that Harry Reid was invited to participate in discussions at the White House indicates that the President also wants to see an honest debate.

If the discussion doesn't go Reid's way, neither Vandenberg, nor Roosevelt's blurb quotes indicate that the Senate Majority Leader should then provide a Commander-in-Chief style assessment of the war to the press.

I looked a little, but I'm not that good at finding things like this. Besides the typical criticism of a war that isn't proceeding well, are there any statements even close to Reid's? I mean, did any politician, with similar standing, have the gall to say publicly that we were losing the Second World war? That's an honest question. Tell me it happened and I'll take back what I said about Harry Reid.

How many years and how many UN resolutions were ignored? So-called diplomacy with Iraq spanned about a decade with Saddam becoming more and more non-compliant with those resolutions. Resolutions that did permit military action as a final recourse. That's a different kettle of fish, though.

Resolutions to do what? Stop making the WMDs he wasn't making?

Frankly you've long since lost this argument, traitor.

I mean, did any politician, with similar standing, have the gall to say publicly that we were losing the Second World war? That's an honest question. Tell me it happened and I'll take back what I said about Harry Reid.

Whether someone said we were losing WWII has nothing to do with whether Harry Reid is a traitor.

You fail at logic.

A for effort though.

To criticize Bush's handling of the war is fine. Saying that we lost to the public is not.


We are losing. We have lost. To admit it is not treason', it is realism.


If he had said it in a private meeting on strategy, then that is patriotic duty. Telling the enemy that they are winning is treason.

The way I see it, admitting that this war is stupid and unwinnable pales into insignificance against sending increasing numbers of our children 'over there' to die.

We don't need to be there. There was no threat. The current regime is letting Middle East destructive elements take potshots at our kids. We are handing them our children to kill - that sounds more like 'treason' than anything a politician might have 'said'.

I'm not doing this any more. This guy is immune to reason, and I don't see the point in wasting my time arguing with him.

And here I thought the last Bushevik military vet was gone when Forrest Horn took off.

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.

If I ever get into office I'm going to introduce legislation that makes making bullshit claims an offence punishable by being beaten with a hammer. Or maybe I'll just make "bullshit" an allowable defense when you wind up and sock someone in the nose. Like self-defense gets you off for killing someone.

At any rate. I think we should bring duels back, because making a bullshit argument like that one is nothing more than an insult to the intelligence of the listener. No one could ever be swayed to believe such an argument unless they had already suffered some sort of massive head trauma, so the speaker can only be trying to call you moron.

Much the same way that if you tell someone to "go jump in a lake" or "go fly a kite," what you are saying is "you are too stupid to add anything worthwhile to this conversation." By making the claim that Harry Reid is a traitor because he called a failure a failure, Myrmidonisia is saying "you're such a complete moron that there is a slim chance that you'll think that this makes some sense." When people say things like that to me personally, I feel I should be allowed the chance to sock 'em in the nose.

How many years and how many UN resolutions were ignored? So-called diplomacy with Iraq spanned about a decade with Saddam becoming more and more non-compliant with those resolutions. Resolutions that did permit military action as a final recourse. That's a different kettle of fish, though.

When we go back to Roosevelt and Vandenberg, I don't see any contradictions. I see both asking for honest debate. The fact that Harry Reid was invited to participate in discussions at the White House indicates that the President also wants to see an honest debate.

If the discussion doesn't go Reid's way, neither Vandenberg, nor Roosevelt's blurb quotes indicate that the Senate Majority Leader should then provide a Commander-in-Chief style assessment of the war to the press.

I looked a little, but I'm not that good at finding things like this. Besides the typical criticism of a war that isn't proceeding well, are there any statements even close to Reid's? I mean, did any politician, with similar standing, have the gall to say publicly that we were losing the Second World war? That's an honest question. Tell me it happened and I'll take back what I said about Harry Reid.

You sir, are completely entitled to your opinion.

But I am here to tell you, that I don't regret for one moment the years I spent defending this country that allow BOTH you and Senator Reid to express his opinion.

I assure you as an Officer who has served in a war zone I had precious little time to read the bullshit mouthing of political apparatchik. That title goes to BOTH Senator Reid and Senator McConnell.

To suggest that having an unpopular opinion is equated to treason is complete horseshit, son. I have very little use for politicians in both political parties, because neither have the best interests of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines at heart. Go look up the definition of treason and stop reading party bullet points.

Frankly, I am greatly ashamed at how our soldiers have been treated from the get go. Inferior equipment, non-armoured troop carriers, crappy medical care...all of that combined with a President who simply cannot resist using military backgrounds and active duty soldiers as a backdrop for political speeches. Completely shameful. The military has struggled to do as it was ordered without the tools to do them with.

So a little acerbic comment from Senator Reid is not going to screw up morale any more than the conditions, extended tours and inferior equipment would. Actually, probably less.

You are a sad, sick little troll who waves the flag and think it makes you a man. A false patriot. Spout your crap, we paid the price for you to be mouthy. But spare me your idiotic assertions that Senator Reid or anyone else who disagrees with this war is a traitor.

Leathernecks and I may disagree some, but we both have served and we have that in common. We certainly BOTH want what is best for our fighting men and women, we just simply see different ways of accomplishing it. He gets my respect, you don't.

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

Boooooo. I claim the title 'Dear Leader' for Howard! He deserves it more as he has been longer in office.

To suggest that having an unpopular opinion is equated to treason is complete horseshit, son.

What makes the whole argument even more into the realm of crap is that it is not, in fact, an unpopular opinion, and is rather the opinion of the majority of people in this country.

What makes the whole argument even more into the realm of crap is that it is not, in fact, an unpopular opinion, and is rather the opinion of the majority of people in this country.

Correct. So over 60% of Americans are traitors in this guy's world. Pathetic.

Correct. So over 60% of Americans are traitors in this guy's world. Pathetic.

no no, somehow he's a traitor becahse he's a politician. So you and me who say it on the street we're ok, because Al Qaeda isn't listening to us.

Boooooo. I claim the title 'Dear Leader' for Howard! He deserves it more as he has been longer in office.
Howard can have the title, when he pries it from Bush's cold dead hands.

Bush and Howard should totally have a thunderdome-esque deathmatch. Two leaders enter, one leader leaves!
no no, somehow he's a traitor becahse he's a politician. So you and me who say it on the street we're ok, because Al Qaeda isn't listening to us.
How do you know they're not listening to us man, how do you know!?

Pah! This treason? Did you hear what Alec Baldwin said to his daughter in a private conversation? You want to talk about treason then you want to talk about Baldwin. (Bumpersticker manufacturers, give me money before putting that gem to work)

Bush and Howard should totally have a thunderdome-esque deathmatch. Two leaders enter, one leader leaves!

Throw in a bag of popcorn and that's the makings for a damn fine Saturday night.

You are a sad, sick little troll who waves the flag and think it makes you a man. A false patriot. Spout your crap, we paid the price for you to be mouthy. But spare me your idiotic assertions that Senator Reid or anyone else who disagrees with this war is a traitor.

Leathernecks and I may disagree some, but we both have served and we have that in common. We certainly BOTH want what is best for our fighting men and women, we just simply see different ways of accomplishing it. He gets my respect, you don't.
You really don't deserve this, but you get to hear a little about my history. I have just as much buy-in as you, when it comes to what I've done for my country. I spent twelve years on active duty in the Marine Corps, eight in the IRR and I retired as a Lieutenant Colonel.

During those twelve years on active duty, I spent at least six away from home, while accumulating 2500 hours in A-6 Intruders, over 200 traps, and more than a hundred hours of green ink in my logbook. If you know what's special about green ink, then you are probably for real, if not, I really don't care.

What you forget is that what's best for our soldiers and Marines isn't necessarily what's best for the nation. The President was right when he said that this was going to be long and hard. He was also right when he said that the consequences of failure were too awful to imagine. Harry Reid hasn't helped the nation or the troops with his pronouncement of failure. Neither do you with your false support.

You really don't deserve this, but you get to hear a little about my history. I have just as much buy-in as you, when it comes to what I've done for my country. I spent twelve years on active duty in the Marine Corps, eight in the IRR and I retired as a Lieutenant Colonel.

During those twelve years on active duty, I spent at least six away from home, while accumulating 2500 hours in A-6 Intruders, over 200 traps, and more than a hundred hours of green ink in my logbook. If you know what's special about green ink, then you are probably for real, if not, I really don't care.

What you forget is that what's best for our soldiers and Marines isn't necessarily what's best for the nation. The President was right when he said that this was going to be long and hard. He was also right when he said that the consequences of failure were too awful to imagine. Harry Reid hasn't helped the nation or the troops with his pronouncement of failure. Neither do you with your false support.

Harry Reid has spoken for the silent majority. Bush continues to pretend he has the support of the greater general public, when, in fact, his occupation of Iraq is sanctioned by an increasingly small minority.

More of the American people think we are throwing away the lives of our sons and daughters. Most of the American people think this war is over, and that we need to get our kids out of harm's way.

Bush is pandering to a tiny warmonger minority, over the best interests of the nation, and the will of the people. Harry Reid is representing the people. Not only is that his right, that is his responsibility, in a representative democracy.

You really don't deserve this, but you get to hear a little about my history. I have just as much buy-in as you, when it comes to what I've done for my country. I spent twelve years on active duty in the Marine Corps, eight in the IRR and I retired as a Lieutenant Colonel.

During those twelve years on active duty, I spent at least six away from home, while accumulating 2500 hours in A-6 Intruders, over 200 traps, and more than a hundred hours of green ink in my logbook. If you know what's special about green ink, then you are probably for real, if not, I really don't care.

What you forget is that what's best for our soldiers and Marines isn't necessarily what's best for the nation. The President was right when he said that this was going to be long and hard. He was also right when he said that the consequences of failure were too awful to imagine. Harry Reid hasn't helped the nation or the troops with his pronouncement of failure. Neither do you with your false support.

We are the same rank. I commend you for your career as a Naval Aviator. I can safely presume you are a Marine Aviator, Colonel?

I do not commend you for your blind adherence to the posturings of the same people who send us into harm's way. In both political parties.

Respect is earned Colonel. I walked the walk and I still do. I spent a lifetime making hard decisions sending out intelligence, all the while knowing that good men were going to die because of my work. My only prayer was that the lives lost would be minimized by good solid analysis by my people and myself. That is the nature of warfare.

I would be a damn poor Officer if I had not spent some years at the sharp end as well.

Senator Reid is no more a traitor than either one of us. He was elected by his constituency to express their opinion and do in his best judgement what is best for them. Your rantings about his comments does you a grave disservice.

I do not begrudge him or his counterpart their opinions.

We fundamentally disagree. I think that democracy is about the freedoms we have, and the freedoms we fight for. I do not make exceptions because someone makes a comment I don't like and I do not throw the charges of either High or Low Treason out lightly, to do so makes light of actual acts of treason that are genuinely actionable. I might be right pissed off at a guy burning the flag I fought for, but...

For free speech to really be free, we have to accept that people are going to say and express some pretty shitty things, and we won't like it. But we have to accept that is part of what makes this nation fundamentally a good place. We let people speak their minds even if it pisses us off something fierce.

That is what I fought for, Colonel. That country. Not the one where disagreeing with the boss gets you hung, pilloried or called something they most certainly AREN'T.

22.5 years, USAF. Lt. Colonel (ret)

Next you'll be calling me junior, sport, little lady or some other cute little nickname you think makes your gun seem more impressive.

I think it'd be more accurate to replace "gun" with "penis", regarding USMC Tinkerbellnecks here.

Snip.

Respect is earned, you said?

You earned mine, in this regard.

Your text was coherent, had good internal logic and was well-written. And THAT I, a Literature and Linguistics graduate, can evaluate.

Might have something to do with you being PATIENT with them. :p

I don't think I can ever remember reading such a blatant anti-free-speech thread.

I'm pretty cynical, but I don't think that America will become so fascist that one cannot disapprove of a war without being jailed.

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

I don't think I can ever remember reading such a blatant anti-free-speech thread.

I'm pretty cynical, but I don't think that America will become so fascist that one cannot disapprove of a war without being jailed.

Stick around. If Mrymi, Leathernecks, and their ilk have their way -- and they will -- that is exactly what holding an opinion will cost you.

Stick around. If Mrymi, Leathernecks, and their ilk have their way -- and they will -- that is exactly what holding an opinion will cost you.

Well, yeah.

Which is?

Disagreeing with Myrmidonisia.

Stick around. If Mrymi, Leathernecks, and their ilk have their way -- and they will -- that is exactly what holding an opinion will cost you.

I think the US is the only western country that has some people even believe the CONCEPT of dissent equalling treason.

Prove that last statement.
How do you prove a culture if you have never been to and seen that culture?
And what about the shi'a militas, or the sunni militas? Can you conduct diplomacy with them? Like al-Sadr?
There are hundreds of militias. Yes, we talk to them and make agreements. Diplomacy is talks between nations. They are not nations.
No, as in killing every terrorist and insurgent in the great state of Iraq.
That is neither possible or necessary. If an Iraqi gov't with the might to remain is established then it can fight an insurgency for decades to ultimate victory.
Training other troops would only embolden the enemy would it not? It sends a message that the US can't shoulder the burden alone, and thus are weak. Advocating training is treason! [/Sarcasm]
No it wouldn't, it sends the message that there will be a gov't long after we are gone and that there is no hope for them.

Why do we respond to these threads?

Why do we let facists and jingoists stroke their mental sex organs using us as their toys? If we didn't respond, they couldn't respond back. No more toys for their mental masturbation.

It's that easy. I say this thread ends. Now. No more posts. Ever. I'm hoping other people are with me.

Fuckin' A, hats off to Harry fuckin' Reid in that case. Young people need to twig to the fact that they're being set up to take a fall for no valid reason at all - by a bunch of old men in suits.

Old men in suits who don't give a flying fuck about them unless there's a camera rolling somewhere within earshot.

I have yet to talk to someone who regretted their service.

I have yet to talk to someone who regretted their service.

I feel sorry for you, with you being mute and all.

OH MY GOD! Quick, every in Congress SHUT UP because the enemies might hear you.

Do you even get how ridiculous you sound?

Yet you still haven't addressed how his comments don't hurt us and help the enemy.


They were taking people out of retirement long before Reid said this, and you know it. Please try not to twist the facts to fit your worldview.
B/c it was happening before makes it right to make it worse?

But not everyone does. Of course, we should expect our kids to march off cheerfully to war and risk life, limb, and mental health.
Who said that?



Very simple. You're complaining about recruitment being hurt. I talked about methods of recruitment being used today. Instead you respond with an ad hominem attack about my mental health. I'm sure there are more pointless insults for you to make because OOORAH!!!! we should all support you because you're in the military and therefore right, and anyone who disagrees obviously is a traitorous mental patient.
I don't care whether Reid disagrees with me or not. I care what message he sends to more impressionable personnel and our enemies.

I feel sorry for you, with you being mute and all.

Good one. If you could come up with something a little less rhetorical that'd be great.

Yet you still haven't addressed how his comments don't hurt us and help the enemy.

The burden of proof is on YOU, Tinkerbell.

I don't care whether Reid disagrees with me or not. I care what message he sends to more impressionable personnel and our enemies.

You have people that are trained to be insensitive towards the act of killing and yet feel deeply when someone points out the loss they're seeing EVERYDAY?

Because you say so? Fuck that. And the public isn't stupid--as I noted way earlier in this thread, over half the population thinks we've lost, and if you include those who think that this will end with no winner, then you're over 60%. Are we all traitors? Are we?
And over half the population doesn't know what is going on in Iraq. They are not traitors, just misguided.


You have an extremely fucked up sense of what treason is. And I'm glad that it's not an accurate one, because I wouldn't want to live in a country where your definition is operative. In fact, I can safely say that if I did live in such a place, I'd have taken up arms against the government already. In for a penny, in for a pound.
Maybe not treason, but highly irresponsible.

Good one. If you could come up with something a little less rhetorical that'd be great.

I would come up with something WAY more rhetorical if you ACTUALLY wanted me to.

Yet you still haven't addressed how his comments don't hurt us and help the enemy.


It does hurt us, just as much as the presence of christians, jews, gays, pork eaters and women who don't wear burkhas emboldens the muslim terrorist enemies.

Therefore, all christians, jews, gays, pork eatters and women who don't wear burkhas, as their acts anger and embolden the terrorists, are giving aid to our enemy. Ergo, every christian, jew, gay, pork eatter and woman who doesn't wear a burkha are comitting treason. Likewise, as the punishment for treason is execution, by the laws of this nation, every christian, jew, gay, pork eater and woman who doesn't wear a burkha should be put to death forthwih.

Say...you're a christian, aren't you?

It does hurt us, just as much as the presence of christians, jews, gays, pork eaters and women who don't wear burkhas emboldens the muslim terrorist enemies.

Therefore, all christians, jews, gays, pork eatters and women who don't wear burkhas, as their acts anger and embolden the terrorists, are giving aid to our enemy. Ergo, every christian, jew, gay, pork eatter and woman who doesn't wear a burkha are comitting treason. Likewise, as the punishment for treason is execution, by the laws of this nation, every christian, jew, gay, pork eater and woman who doesn't wear a burkha should be put to death forthwih.
That is something that we can't change. However we can change what we say.
Say...you're a christian, aren't you?

No, agnostic.

That is something that we can't change. However we can change what we say.

Orrrr... we could retain free speech and let the terrorists, and people like you, deal with it.

However we can change what we say.

The Constitution you CLAIM TO defend includes the right NOT to change what you say.

The burden of proof is on YOU, Tinkerbell.
I've already explained to you how it hurts us. It will be used as propaganda to get recruits for insurgent and terrorist organizations.

You have people that are trained to be insensitive towards the act of killing and yet feel deeply when someone points out the loss they're seeing EVERYDAY?
They can't see something that doesn't exist.

That is something that we can't change. However we can change what we say.

Bullshit. The distinction is worthless and you know it. Muslim fanaticism prospers because it objects to our way of life. If you standard of treason is "doing things that help the enemy" then EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THIS COUNTRY is guilty of treason as it is our very lifestyle that drives their recruitment.

Al Qaeda objects to every nation that does not follow Sharia law, so as long as we continue not following sharia law, everyone who doesn't follow it is one more person that aids in the recruitment of terrorism. Your standard of what is and is not "aid" is so god damned vague as to include pretty much everyone, and you know it.

Moreover, as I pointed out to Myr, who ignored it, all criminal law is statutory, no action is illegal unless a law makes it illegal. Reid's acts are protected by the constitution. That which is protected by the constitution can not, every, by definition, be criminal. Has to do with the whole "shall make no law" bit.


No, agnostic.

Ever eat a spare rib? Ever wipe your ass with your right hand? Bet you have, you traitorous bastard.

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.

yes, because freedom of speech and having an opinion is sooo UnAmerican :rolleyes:

Bullshit. The distinction is worthless and you know it. Muslim fanaticism prospers because it objects to our way of life. If you standard of treason is "doing things that help the enemy" then EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THIS COUNTRY is guilty of treason as it is our very lifestyle that drives their recruitment.

Al Qaeda objects to every nation that does not follow Sharia law, so as long as we continue not following sharia law, everyone who doesn't follow it is one more person that aids in the recruitment of terrorism. Your standard of what is and is not "aid" is so god damned vague as to include pretty much everyone, and you know it.

Moreover, as I pointed out to Myr, who ignored it, all criminal law is statutory, no action is illegal unless a law makes it illegal. Reid's acts are protected by the constitution. That which is protected by the constitution can not, every, by definition, be criminal. Has to do with the whole "shall make no law" bit.

Post 321


Ever eat a spare rib? Ever wipe your ass with your right hand? Bet you have, you traitorous bastard.
Nah, I had prime rib for dinner tonight.

I've already explained to you how it hurts us. It will be used as propaganda to get recruits for insurgent and terrorist organizations.

And yet you said nothing when Lynndie England raped people. Or when the invasion, that the WORLD warned you would get recruits for terrorist organizations, happened and YOU were a part of it.

They can't see something that doesn't exist.

And yet your own generals point out how utterly mismanaged this war was. Or you're trying to elliminate it by claiming it doesn't exist? It doesn't work for me with your own existance, so, why do you try it?

Okay, but then next time you refer to U.S. anywhere you will not say "we" as you are not a part of it.

I am a US Citizen. Hate to break it to you, your royal highness, but just because I tear apart your 'arguments' and shove them where they belong, doesn't invalidate the fact that I'm an American.

And while you're at it, when referring to terrorist activities anywhere you could use "we."

Ah yes - I believe in free speech, and am therefore a terrorist.

Evidently this whole "thinking" thing is not for you.

Okay, but then next time you refer to U.S. anywhere you will not say "we" as you are not a part of it. And while you're at it, when referring to terrorist activities anywhere you could use "we."

Advocacy of freedom of speech= advocacy of terrorism?

And yet you said nothing when Lynndie England raped people. Or when the invasion, that the WORLD warned you would get recruits for terrorist organizations, happened and YOU were a part of it.
Alright, Lynndie England is a traitor.



And yet your own generals point out how utterly mismanaged this war was. Or you're trying to elliminate it by claiming it doesn't exist? It doesn't work for me with your own existance, so, why do you try it?
Mismanaged at only the highest levels=lost?

Listen up.

He will talk as he damn well pleases.

Reid will talk as he damn well pleases.

I will talk as I damn well please.
Tis is the way of the sheep.
You will quit trying to equate those that disagree with you to terrorists unless you want me to have some fun with you right here, right now, in this thread.
Was that a threat? Because that is a very bad idea.

Okay, but then next time you refer to U.S. anywhere you will not say "we" as you are not a part of it. And while you're at it, when referring to terrorist activities anywhere you could use "we."

Listen up.

He will talk as he damn well pleases.

Reid will talk as he damn well pleases.

I will talk as I damn well please.

You will quit trying to equate those that disagree with you to terrorists unless you want me to have some fun with you right here, right now, in this thread.

Advocacy of freedom of speech= advocacy of terrorism?

How is Reid advocating FOS? You aren't worth it.

How is Reid advocating FOS? You aren't worth it.

Sorry, let me rephrase:

Excercising freedom of speech= advocacy of terrorism?

So are you. You invaded Iraq, which caused terrorist recruitment to rise.
I didn't invade anybody.


No, "you didn't accomplish any of your purported goals" = "lost".
Goal 1- kill saddam done
Goal 2- set up a democractic iraq done
Goal 3- Bolster IA and IP to be able to handle all of their security in progress

Alright, Lynndie England is a traitor.

So are you. You invaded Iraq, which caused terrorist recruitment to rise.

Mismanaged at only the highest levels=lost?

No, "you didn't accomplish any of your purported goals" = "lost".

So... "freedom to disagree" = "sheep"? Cute.
Are you deaf. He can disagree all he fucking wants. Doesn't change the fact that he is helping the enemy. You have taken that last statement and turned it into I want him in jail.



Depends. Do you consider being humiliated in this thread threatening? What CAN you do to me, Tinkerbell?
You are humiliating yourself.

Tis is the way of the sheep.

So... "freedom to disagree" = "sheep"? Cute.

Was that a threat? Because that is a very bad idea.

Depends. Do you consider being humiliated in this thread threatening? What CAN you do to me, Tinkerbell?

Sorry, let me rephrase:

Excercising freedom of speech= advocacy of terrorism?

Telling the enemy that they are winning=helping the enemy

I don't know where you got the other bs.

I didn't invade anybody.

Yes, you invaded Iraq.

Goal 1- kill saddam done after a pretty embarassing long time.
Goal 2- set up a democractic iraq done only whoever goes to vote is killed.
Goal 3- Bolster IA and IP to be able to handle all of their security in progress in Bizarro world

Fixed.

Are you deaf. He can disagree all he fucking wants. Doesn't change the fact that he is helping the enemy. You have taken that last statement and turned it into I want him in jail.

How is Reid advocating FOS? You aren't worth it.

Hey, LISTEN UP Einstein. You said *I* am a terrorist. I am not Reid. *I* said I prefer freedom of speech.

That is the basis with which you've called me not only a traitor, but a terrorist... and a sheep?

STOP SMOKING CRACK. IT IS BAD FOR YOUR MENTAL PROCESSES.

Yes, you invaded Iraq.
No. I was in A-stan.


Goal 1- kill saddam done after a pretty embarassing long time.
Didn't know that you were against due process.
Goal 2- set up a democractic iraq done only whoever goes to vote is killed.
I didn't know 72% of iraq was dead.
Goal 3- Bolster IA and IP to be able to handle all of their security in progress in Bizarro world
That was a good one. If only you could come up w/ coherent arguments.

Are you deaf. He can disagree all he fucking wants. Doesn't change the fact that he is helping the enemy. You have taken that last statement and turned it into I want him in jail.

You claimed he was "aiding the enemy". You KNOW this is treason. So, yes, you DO want him in jail. For exercising free speech.

You are humiliating yourself.

I'll take that as a challenge. Very well.

You claimed he was "aiding the enemy". You KNOW this is treason. So, yes, you DO want him in jail. For exercising free speech.

Since we are not in a state of declared war against any enemy it is not legally treason. Therefore, no, I don't want him in jail.

Advocacy of freedom of speech= advocacy of terrorism?

Yeah, I guess I missed that part of political science.

No. I was in A-stan.

Too bad you didn't die there.

Hey, LISTEN UP Einstein. You said *I* am a terrorist. I am not Reid. *I* said I prefer freedom of speech.

That is the basis with which you've called me not only a traitor, but a terrorist... and a sheep?

STOP SMOKING CRACK. IT IS BAD FOR YOUR MENTAL PROCESSES.

Where did I call you a terrorist? If I did it was clearly a mistake. There are three kinds of people in this world, sheep, sheepdogs and wolves. You do the math.

Where did I call you a terrorist? If I did it was clearly a mistake. There are three kinds of people in this world, sheep, sheepdogs and wolves. You do the math.

That's probably zoology, rather than mathematics.

Too bad you didn't die there.
You are a fucking idiot. Reid encouraged the enemy. That is my only point. Explain to me how he did not.

That's probably zoology, rather than mathematics.

Hehe, finally something to laugh about.

You are a fucking idiot. Reid encouraged the enemy. That is my only point. Explain to me how he did not.

Blah blah blah. I'm a sheep, I'm a terrorist, I'm a traitor, I'm an idiot. So many names you've learned how to call people.

Where did I call you a terrorist?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12568173&postcount=329

Any other questions?

If I did it was clearly a mistake.

Didn't look like it to me, but if you want to waffle go ahead.

There are three kinds of people in this world, sheep, sheepdogs and wolves. You do the math.

Math? OK. I have two legs.

What does this pseudo-macho "wolves and sheep" bullshit have to do with anything?

Hehe, finally something to laugh about.

Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week.

Blah blah blah. I'm a sheep, I'm a terrorist, I'm a traitor, I'm an idiot. So many names you've learned how to call people.
I didn't call you a terrorist. I was merely pointing out that you are helping the terrorists more than us. When the terrorists attack your city you are going to be running for help from the people that you spit on.



Math? OK. I have two legs.

What does this pseudo-macho "wolves and sheep" bullshit have to do with anything?
That you spit on the people who very well may save your life one day.

Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week.
The way this thread is going we may need ya that long. Unless trosty deems it time to answer how Reid's comments don't help the enemy.

That you spit on the people who very well may save your life one day.

Since when do sheep spit on the sheepdogs? I think you need a new analogy, fast.

This is a maneuver I perform when I feel like it. It goes to make a point about my superiority in relation to my opponent, usually, but, right now, I'm up against, well, nothing. However, said piece of nothingness did challenge me, so, without further ado...

Friends, users, NSers, lend me your eyes;
I come to bury Reid, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Reid. The noble USMC
Hath told you Reid was aiding the enemy:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Reid answer'd it.
Here, under leave of USMC and the rest--
For USMC is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men--
Come I to speak in the attack on Reid.
He was in favor of getting the troops out of harm's way:
But USMC says he was aiding the enemy;
And USMC is an honourable man.
He hath brought many many suggestions of how to help,
that many competent generals agreed with:
Did this in Reid seem to aid the enemy?
When that the soldiers died, Reid wanted to prevent that:
Aiding the enemy should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet USMC says he was ambitious;
And USMC is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the remarks
He suggested other means to help the troops,
Which Bush did thrice refuse: was this aiding the enemy?
Yet USMC says he was aiding the enemy;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove what USMC spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
Several soldiers fought for free speech, not without cause:
What cause drives you then, to fight against it?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with the Constitution USMC swore he would protect,
And I must pause till it come back to me.

Useless snip
And yet you can't answer to how Reid encouraging our enemy does not help our enemy.

The way this thread is going we may need ya that long. Unless trosty deems it time to answer how Reid's comments don't help the enemy.

This is the internet: he will keep answering, you will keep answering, and I will die here still milking your sheepdog analogy.

Too bad you didn't die there.

That was probably a bit much...

Since when do sheep spit on the sheepdogs? I think you need a new analogy, fast.
The sheep don't want sheepdogs. They are in denial that violence is a reality. However when that violence is reaped upon them by wolves the first people they come to are the sheepdogs. In fact they run crying into their arms.

Warning: Very long
On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman
By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, author of "On Killing."
Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always,even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me:

"Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.

There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke

Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

For example, many officers carry their weapons in church.? They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs.? Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.

Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."

Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself...

"Baa."

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.

And yet you can't answer to how Reid encouraging our enemy does not help our enemy.
Because he's saying things the terrorists will hear if they turn on a television or talk to the majority of Americans, well, the majority of the world.

http://www.megat.co.uk/wrong/wrong.php?r=bhstv4&n=USMC&c=%23FF0000&t=Reid

;)

And yet you can't answer to how Reid encouraging our enemy does not help our enemy.

Again: YOU have to prove it DOES. People don't have to prove negatives, they have to prove affirmatives. You're attacking the Constitution when you claim Reid was "aiding" the enemy (treason) through speech. Shame on you for breaking your oath to protect it!

And yet you can't answer to how Reid encouraging our enemy does not help our enemy.
Hahahaha!!

This piece of idiocy following Heikoku's brilliant adaptation, actually added to H's brilliance and made me laugh even louder.

Sorry, I'm a latecomer to this party. I was tied up in, you know, that place called reality. So tell me, when and how was it proven that anything Reid has said is "encouraging our enemy"? Short of that proof, you cannot proceed on that basis even to an unproven claim that he is helping them.

At the very least, prove to me that anything Reid has said has encouraged our enemies more than everything Bush has done.

Again: YOU have to prove it DOES. People don't have to prove negatives, they have to prove affirmatives. You're attacking the Constitution when you claim Reid was "aiding" the enemy (treason) through speech. Shame on you for breaking your oath to protect it!

How am I attacking the Constitution? I am not saying that he can't make those statements. However he loses my support when he does. For the 15,000th time, He tells the enemy that we are losing and implies that we will then pull out soon. The enemy sees that and uses it as propaganda to get recruits. An example way to use this is to say,"Hey, look. Even the Americans themselves know that we are superior. Allah has shown us the way. You must thank Allah by doing your duty of jihad."

<WHAT THE FUCK SNIP>

I'm pretty sure sheep lack denial capability, being bred for wool and meat isn't good for intelligence.

Snip.

So, where did you copy-paste that tripe from? You obviously didn't write this whole diatribe right now.

This piece of idiocy following Heikoku's brilliant adaptation, actually added to H's brilliance and made me laugh even louder.

It somewhat pains me to throw pearl before swine, but, well... he asked for it.

I didn't call you a terrorist. I was merely pointing out that you are helping the terrorists more than us.

You said I should, when talking about terrorists, say "we."

Therefore, that I am one with the terrorists.

Quit flip-flopping. Say what you mean and mean what you say. This cowardly backtracking of yours is just showing that you're a dishonest troll.

When the terrorists attack your city you are going to be running for help from the people that you spit on.

Yes yes. And when Satan's minions come up to destroy the world, all knees will be bending to Jesus.

Do continue your orgasmic self-congratulations. It's amusing. Not an argument for anything, but amusing nonetheless.

That you spit on the people who very well may save your life one day.

...by arguing for freedom of speech, I am spitting on people?

How interesting.

Let's see... I'm an idiot, I'm a sheep, a terrorist, a traitor, not an American, and I spit on proud heroes like you. All because... I argued in favor of a Constitutional Right.

Are you a joke?

Or just a troll?

Do you honestly expect me to believe you have THAT MUCH difficulty with BASIC COMPREHENSION?

I suppose you want me to just flame you back, but I don't take any offense from the words of internet trolls who apparently are unable to read.

However he loses my support when he does.

Laudari a bonis et vituperari a malis unum atque idem est.

For the 15,000th time, He tells the enemy that we are losing and implies that we will then pull out soon. The enemy sees that and uses it as propaganda to get recruits. An example way to use this is to say,"Hey, look. Even the Americans themselves know that we are superior. Allah has shown us the way. You must thank Allah by doing your duty of jihad."

They're too busy using "The Americans have invaded Iraq against the wishes of the world", "The Americans are torturing people in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo" and "The Americans supported Saddam and meddle with deady results whenever it suits them" as great propaganda pieces. Also, for the 15,000th time, PROVE the enemy sees that, PROVE the enemy uses it as propaganda, PROVE your assertions rather than simply yelling "things are going great in Iraq" and "I am a soldier" as if that were gonna make your claims any less of an utter fallacy, Tinkerbell!

You said I should, when talking about terrorists, say "we."

Therefore, that I am one with the terrorists.

Quit flip-flopping. Say what you mean and mean what you say. This cowardly backtracking of yours is just showing that you're a dishonest troll.
Supporting people who help terrorists more than their country doesn't equal being a terrorist. But then I already explained that to you.


Yes yes. And when Satan's minions come up to destroy the world, all knees will be bending to Jesus.
I'm not religious.
Do continue your orgasmic self-congratulations. It's amusing. Not an argument for anything, but amusing nonetheless.
Well those such as you and the Nazz seem to think pretty highly of yourselves for merely believing what you are told.


...by arguing for freedom of speech, I am spitting on people?

How interesting.
Let's see... I'm an idiot, I'm a sheep, a terrorist, a traitor, not an American, and I spit on proud heroes like you. All because... I argued in favor of a Constitutional Right.
You are not arguing for freedom of speech. If you were you would be arguing against someone who didn't want freedom of speech. You are arguing against a straw man that doesn't exist.


Do you honestly expect me to believe you have THAT MUCH difficulty with BASIC COMPREHENSION?

I suppose you want me to just flame you back, but I don't take any offense from the words of internet trolls who apparently are unable to read.
How hard is it for you to answer my one question? He tells the enemy that we are losing and implies that we will then pull out soon. The enemy sees that and uses it as propaganda to get recruits. An example way to use this is to say,"Hey, look. Even the Americans themselves know that we are superior. Allah has shown us the way. You must thank Allah by doing your duty of jihad." What is wrong with this assessment?

They're too busy using "The Americans have invaded Iraq against the wishes of the world",
They don't care about the wishes of the world. They are the infidel as are you and me.
"The Americans are torturing people in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo"
Yeah, the people who committed those acts deserve to die.
and "The Americans supported Saddam and meddle with deady results whenever it suits them"
Only Americans and Europeans use the Saddam one.
Also, for the 15,000th time, PROVE the enemy sees that, PROVE the enemy uses it as propaganda, PROVE your assertions rather than simply yelling "things are going great in Iraq" and "I am a soldier" as if that were gonna make your claims any less of an utter fallacy, Tinkerbell!
It is common sense that the enemy will use it.
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/1743/iraqbdeoobapril2007pn4.th.jpg (http://img81.imageshack.us/my.php?image=iraqbdeoobapril2007pn4.jpg)
That will show you how far Iraqi forces have come. That is 92 battalions in the lead. And stop calling me Tinkerbell kiddo.

What is wrong with this assessment?

No evidence, no sense, no point, no coherence, no ability to take into account the fact that the invasion itself is a propaganda booster...

They don't care about the wishes of the world. They are the infidel as are you and me.

The invasion is STILL a better propaganda tool than anything anyone could ever say.

It is common sense that the enemy will use it.

There are WAY better propaganda tools. The fact that your mother doesn't wear a burkha is one. Is she a traitor too? Or "aiding the enemy"? Your own MOTHER? How could she?

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/1743/iraqbdeoobapril2007pn4.th.jpg (http://img81.imageshack.us/my.php?image=iraqbdeoobapril2007pn4.jpg)
That will show you how far Iraqi forces have come. That is 92 battalions in the lead. And stop calling me Tinkerbell kiddo.

And yet they fail to secure anywhere in Iraq.

And I'll call you Tinkerbell for as long a while as you act as if soldiers will die if we say we don't believe in them, like faeries in "Hook", Tinkerbell.

For the 15,000th time, He tells the enemy that we are losing and implies that we will then pull out soon.

No, he states that we can't win this militarily and that we should pursue economic ways, in addition to others. You've a remarkably selective memory.



The enemy sees that and uses it as propaganda to get recruits. An example way to use this is to say,"Hey, look. Even the Americans themselves know that we are superior. Allah has shown us the way. You must thank Allah by doing your duty of jihad."

Right. Because celebrities, mockumentary opportunists, the man on the street, human rights advocates, other nations' leaders, and political analysts haven't been saying this for seven years, but Western Democracy will crumble because a Senator had the audacity to speak before the Congress -- which is his duty.

If this is all a result of Reid's comforting the enemy, who is responsible for emboldening them for the first attack on the WTC? Or 9/11? Certainly no one was talking about the prospects of losing the war then.

It is common sense that the enemy will use it.
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/1743/iraqbdeoobapril2007pn4.th.jpg (http://img81.imageshack.us/my.php?image=iraqbdeoobapril2007pn4.jpg)
That will show you how far Iraqi forces have come. That is 92 battalions in the lead. And stop calling me Tinkerbell kiddo.
Just like the enemy will use that image you've provided to figure out the best place to attack the fledgling force and its 'allies'...

Such information would be helpful, no? And by posting it, you're drawing attention to it and the enemy could be using these forums now and be seeing the link you provided. It helps them and makes you a traitor.

See how easy it is to make someone appear like a treasonous twat? :p

party has shown toward causing our defeat at the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists.



extremists, not fundatmentalists. There's a difference. And no, speaking out against a war is not treason, its free speech.

And yet you can't answer to how Reid encouraging our enemy does not help our enemy.All Reid did was state the obvious, the same opinion as the majority of his fellow countrymen. You want to stretch this into 'encouraging the enemy'. So I guess all the media that puplishes those polls that say the same thing are treasonous too. And the majority of Americans are traitors too.

Wait.. America is a country ruled by it's people... the majority of those people agree with Reid.

I guess technically the minority that disagree with the fact that the war in Iraq is lost (LIKE YOU) are really the traitors.

I know that's flawed logic but it makes as much sense as any of the arguements you make.

Tinkerbell.

Supporting people who help terrorists more than their country doesn't equal being a terrorist. But then I already explained that to you.


You are not arguing for freedom of speech. If you were you would be arguing against someone who didn't want freedom of speech. You are arguing against a straw man that doesn't exist.

I support freedom of speech... as I explained in the very first post I made in this thread. You however, are calling such free speech terrorism, supporting terrorism, etc. And me a supporter of terrorism for it.

But whatever. You're a coward who calls people terrorists and can't back it up. Hiding behind your computer like a true "marine."

Well those such as you and the Nazz seem to think pretty highly of yourselves for merely believing what you are told.

My beliefs are not at issue. Point out to me one thing I just "believe what I am told." Go on. I'll wait.

How hard is it for you to answer my one question?

Ah yes, your 'question.' I noticed you didn't answer my question about child rape either. I guess it must be too hard. Perhaps you plead the fifth.

You didn't answer the question about how me saying what I have equates to "spitting on people who save the country" either.

You know why you can't answer it?

Because it doesn't. Because I'm not a traitor, I don't spit on people, I'm not a sheep and I'm not a "fucking idiot."

...actually, I take that back. I spit on you. Everything you stand for - fascism, mindless authoritarianism, black-and-white false dichotomies, "informing" on people, stupid arguments, inability to read. You say "people like you" are going to save my "city" from terrorism? Don't bother. If people "like you" are needed to save this nation, we're better off destroyed, because it's the same thing in the end. People like you hate freedom, the Constitution, and America itself.

He tells the enemy

I wasn't aware that the American public was "the enemy."

I'm learning all sorts of good stuff from you, "marine."

The enemy sees that and uses it as propaganda to get recruits.

Doesn't make it treason. Or unreasonable. There are many things usable as propaganda, including the fact that people like you are turning on Americans like me for daring to support Constitutional rights.

LOL UR TERRORIST TOO LOL.

Okay, that's enough. What is wrong with you people? Why are you totally incapable of discussing anything without turning to personal attacks? This thread is done.

I'm really getting sick of being called in to this forum for the same handful of people. Either you start acting like adults with an ounce of self-control, or I'll start handing out forumbans and nation deletions like they're candy.

Got it?


The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator