Another blunder

[spoc22]

Originally Posted by -mmm-

So we're back to the empty jingoism of "support the troops"?

Try reading the post I was replying to and you'll see, I hope, that I was only saying the same thing said to me but from my perspective. Why is it that when you want to say something from YOUR point of view, it's okay but when I try to say the same thing from MY point of view, you belittle it and call it jingoism (whatever the heck that is)?

[OregonCruiser]

Originally Posted by spoc22

Try reading the post I was replying to and you'll see, I hope, that I was only saying the same thing said to me but from my perspective. Why is it that when you want to say something from YOUR point of view, it's okay but when I try to say the same thing from MY point of view, you belittle it and call it jingoism (whatever the heck that is)?

jingoism...extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy (had to look it up).

[-mmm-]

Originally Posted by hork

and on this note, i think his quote in your profile is very applicable no?

I think it is quite apt. Only cause I thought the Emperor's New Clothes would be a bit too much to put in there.

Originally Posted by Bill Shaw

It's only empty when you say it, because you obviously do not.

Maybe you would like it better if I go back to the more socially accepted version (well it was a year or 2 ago) of supporting the troops by slapping 5 magnetic ribbons on my car and cheer louder and clap my hands together harder in support for the war in Iraq. All while I was being a good consumer cause thats what Bush wanted us to be after 9/11. Instead of truly sacrificing, since if this was such the gravest threat thats what we'd be asked to do or would be doing (akin to what happened during WWII).

And other than the completely flawed argument that "not supporting the war is not supporting the troops" show me where I dont.

Originally Posted by Bill Shaw

That you cherish ultra liberal jingoism is your choice. It is still an extreme perspective. No more or less valuable to anyone than the opposite extreme. Both are tragically flawed, and do more to support the existence of the other than diminish it. Perhaps a fate neither deserve.

I must be doing something right. My liberal leaning friends think Im too conservative, and you think Im an extremist ultra liberal.

But thanks for the good chuckle. That made me laugh more than when my friends were cutting on me (and vice versa) over many beers this past weekend

Originally Posted by spoc22

The rest will be my opinions of him NOT accusations of guilt.

And its my opinion that Bush and many of those in his administration is guilty of many things, and many of those things IMHO are worse than lying about oral sex (I know not new news to you). If you think that me having that opinion of him warrants that I must think that everything is his fault, than go ahead. No skin off my nose. But FWIW (and this is clearly my opinion) when I read you or other conservatives "opine" about Clinton the same thing runs in my head of what probably goes through your head about what I say of Dubya.

[Bill Shaw]

Originally Posted by -mmm-

And other than the completely flawed argument that "not supporting the war is not supporting the troops" show me where I dont.

I see the "anti war" arguments in this thread as having more to do with Bush, and almost nothing to do with the war.

When our military, and their efforts are of less value than another log at the Anti-W Rally, it goes over the line.

The claim of supporting the troops rings hollow throughout.

Sounds more like someone accused of racism claiming to having had a black friend in high school.

[StockTrader]

OMG! Sean Penn is calling for President Bush to withdraw the troops! Quickly, Mr. President, withdraw ... WITHDRAW!



Nick

[ldzppln]

Originally Posted by spoc22

No, that blessed fountain of international solutions, the U.N. talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked with Sadam and God knows how they scared him to death.

Remind me again, what was it the UN & Bush were demanding Saddam do? Oh yeah, distmantle his so-called WMD program. I guess it's hard to satisfy a demand like that, when there was no such program to dismantle. But I suppose attacking, invading and subsequently occupying Iraq was the only real way to make sure his WMD program was properly shut down. Over four years later, $400 billion spent, 3,200+ US soldiers killed, tens of thousands more wounded... sounds like all that talking might have been the way to go.

[ldzppln]

Originally Posted by spoc22

Okay, since you've got it all figured out, what would you do? So far, the only things I've heard from those opposed to the war is Bush did it wrong or we would have done it differently or some variation. It's about time someone stepped up with a counter plan that holds water. So let's hear it.

Easy. Just employ the exit strategy that Bush and his war mongering buddies drew up prior to the invasion & subsequent occupation, which began over four years ago. Surely they have an exit strategy... don't they?

[ldzppln]

Originally Posted by spoc22

All we hear about is how many US soldiers have died, a number which isn't nearly as many as die as a result of drunk drivers every year and I don't hear Murtha wanting to re-deploy all the alcohol to Okinawa.

Please tell us then, what is the magic number of US troops killed in Iraq before you decide it's enough? 5,000? 10,000? 50,000? Does it have to be a number that exceeds a particular accident death rate, or perhaps a death rate associated with an illness - like lung cancer or heart desease, before it becomes an important enough issue to you?

Perhaps a little perspective is in order. I don't know the numbers, but let's say the US military has rotated a total of 250k men & women in and out of Iraq over the last four years. Of those 250k, "only" 3,200 have been killed (and over 23k wounded). Using these numbers, "only" 1.3% of the 250k troops deployed in Iraq have died, and "only" 9.2% of those deployed have been wounded. Overall, when combined, "only" 10.5% of the troops deployed have been killed or wounded while in Iraq. Now apply these percentages to the total US population of roughly 300 million... When 3,840,000 million Americans are killed and another 27,600,000 million are injured due to alcohol-related automobile accidents over a four year period, perhaps Murtha will introduce legislation to crack down on drunk driving. Surely it would be considered a crisis, right?

[StockTrader]

Originally Posted by ldzppln

Please tell us then, what is the magic number of US troops killed in Iraq before you decide it's enough? 5,000? 10,000? 50,000? Does it have to be a number that exceeds a particular accident death rate, or perhaps a death rate associated with an illness - like lung cancer or heart desease, before it becomes an important enough issue to you?

Perhaps a little perspective is in order. I don't know the numbers, but let's say the US military has rotated a total of 250k men & women in and out of Iraq over the last four years. Of those 250k, "only" 3,200 have been killed (and over 23k wounded). Using these numbers, "only" 1.3% of the 250k troops deployed in Iraq have died, and "only" 9.2% of those deployed have been wounded. Overall, when combined, "only" 10.5% of the troops deployed have been killed or wounded while in Iraq. Now apply these percentages to the total US population of roughly 300 million... When 3,840,000 million Americans are killed and another 27,600,000 million are injured due to alcohol-related automobile accidents over a four year period, perhaps Murtha will introduce legislation to crack down on drunk driving. Surely it would be considered a crisis, right?

The bigger thing that you missed is this:

Why aren't you 'fighting' for people who lose their lives to something they cannot control, and instead sit there and try to throw numbers in my face, attempting to make me feel guilty, when each and every man and women that enlists or goes throw ROTC knows the risks of joining? Thank God we have people brave enough to serve [Grandfather, Father, Sister, Uncle(s), Rich, Bill, other members here], and I'm sure most people employed don't want to go, but they know they have to and that there is a certain risk involved with taking the oath.

Nick

[ldzppln]

Originally Posted by StockTrader

The bigger thing that you missed is this:

Why aren't you 'fighting' for people who lose their lives to something they cannot control, and instead sit there and try to throw numbers in my face, attempting to make me feel guilty, when each and every man and women that enlists or goes throw ROTC knows the risks of joining? Thank God we have people brave enough to serve [Grandfather, Father, Sister, Uncle(s), Rich, Bill, other members here], and I'm sure most people employed don't want to go, but they know they have to and that there is a certain risk involved with taking the oath.

Nick

I don't think they signed up to be sent to fight an unjust and unnecessary war, and to occupy a country that posed absolutely no threat to our nation, or any of it's neighbors. They certainly didn't sign up to secure oil fields... but that's what the Bush administration sees fit to use them for.

Yes, thank God for the brave men and women that have served our country, and for those that serve today. They certainly deserve much better than this.

[StockTrader]

Andrew, it doesn't matter. Especially considering that this is the oath:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Not to mention that enlistment numbers have had be be capped off recently. I don't think you give these "President Bush puppets" enough respect. They know exactly what they're doing when they take the oath. Get off of your stool and shut your yapper about "the poor, clueless, blind, helpless troops" and start respecting them for what they are.

Nick

[hork]

Originally Posted by StockTrader

Get off of your stool and shut your yapper about "the poor, clueless, blind, helpless troops" and start respecting them for what they are.

Nick

and that is what exactly? are you suggesting that opposition to policy is the same as opposition to the uniformed person? would you argue that i in my opposition to this war in any way shape or form have less respect and or gratitude toward those who don the uniform and those who have gone before them?

[StockTrader]

Well, if you're taking the road of "This is all President Bush's fault!", then yes.

People still continue to enlist today; please, fire your comments back.

Nick

[hork]

Originally Posted by StockTrader

Well, if you're taking the road of "This is all President Bush's fault!", then yes.

People still continue to enlist today; please, fire your comments back.

Nick

i have no comments as you're logic fails me miserably. how does voicing opposition for bush equate with harboring ill-will against uniformed military personnel?

if you could explain that leap in logic to me then i'll be more than happy to offer further comment.

[StockTrader]

Originally Posted by ldzppln

I don't think they signed up to be sent to fight an unjust and unnecessary war, and to occupy a country that posed absolutely no threat to our nation, or any of it's neighbors. They certainly didn't sign up to secure oil fields... but that's what the Bush administration sees fit to use them for.

Well, there's this comment from Andrew. If this were the case, then why are men and women still enlisting? Must be President Bush's fault, right? He's probably forcing them to, eh?

Nick