Anti-War Effort

[OptiPrime]

I got into an argument with someone the other day about the War effort in Iraq, and they came to the conclusion that if you don't support the Allies, you support the terrorists. And quite frankly, that's a crock of shit.

I didn't fucking spend my time living through the era of Vietnam to fucking come around to this fucking time and not having learned that the goddamn situation boils down to this: If you're against the war it doesn't mean that you're for the other side! If people show up with signs that go, 'GO IRAQ, YOU FUCKERS GO!' then you go, "Holy Shit," then you beat the fuck out of them. - Lewis Black

Personally I think GW went to Iraq for the wrong reasons, and regardless of how fuck-hopeless the situation is, not setting a deadline is the same as sitting behind his desk twiddling his thumbs, waiting for the Sunnis to look at each other and say "This is fucking boring, let's play something else."

[SolInvictus]

At 5/1/07 02:38 PM, OptiPrime wrote: and they came to the conclusion that if you don't support the Allies, you support the terrorists. And quite frankly, that's a crock of shit.

no matter what your view on the war is that argument is in fact a crock of shit.

if you (anyone who reads this) ever hear anyone say that, even if they aren't talking to you, please give them a nice kick to the teeth.

[Memorize]

At 5/1/07 02:38 PM, OptiPrime wrote: I got into an argument with someone the other day about the War effort in Iraq, and they came to the conclusion that if you don't support the Allies, you support the terrorists. And quite frankly, that's a crock of shit.

It's actually fairly close to the truth when you look at today's liberals.

Personally I think GW went to Iraq for the wrong reasons, and regardless of how fuck-hopeless the situation is, not setting a deadline is the same as sitting behind his desk twiddling his thumbs,

And setting a timeline against the Military's wishes (cause, you know, what does the military know anyway right?) is so much better.

[UWDarDar17]

At 5/1/07 11:49 PM, Memorize wrote: It's actually fairly close to the truth when you look at today's liberals.

You're full of shit, Memorize. How many liberals do you actually know? I don't mean "see them on the street, hear them in class" acquaintance-know. I mean actually "sit down, get to know them, actually have a civilized debate rather than resort to useless namecalling bullshit" know?

If you can count them on less than ten fingers, then get your sorry ass out there and actually listen to other people's viewpoints, rather than broadly paint all liberals.

I have plenty of conservative friends. Some I discuss politics with, some I don't- it depends on the nature of my friendship with them. Believe it or not, we actually get along and sometimes see each others points. We have mostly the same goals, and the only difference is the methods we believe are the right ones.

I for one am personally sick of your particular, Coulter/Limbaugh-influenced tripe. It contributes nothing to the conversation, and it only worsens the divide between liberals and conservatives, when in fact the opposite should be done and the two sides should work together and compromise on certain issues.

Until you get out there and actually experience viewpoints other than your own...shut the fuck up.

Oh, and to contribute to the topic at hand:

I wholeheartedly support the troops, but I do believe that while there should be a phased withdrawal, we should also leave a contingent behind not only for counter-terrorism, but also to aid in rebuilding (ACoE), advising, training, and various other things that may require U.S. attention. I believe the war has been mismanaged, and the current administration is so bull-headed in their views that they simply don't want to accept the fact that they screwed the pooch on handling the war.

[Memorize]

At 5/2/07 12:10 AM, UWDarDar17 wrote:

You're full of shit, Memorize.

I'm full of sarcasm too.

How many liberals do you actually know?

TRILLIONS!!!

I don't mean "see them on the street, hear them in class" acquaintance-know. I mean actually "sit down, get to know them, actually have a civilized debate rather than resort to useless namecalling bullshit" know?

I didn't know there was a catagory of people under sit-down/get-to know-them/civilized-debate/no-name-calling-bu llshit'.

If you can count them on less than ten fingers,

I live in Arizona and have 10 of them.

It's quite an accomplishment here.

I for one am personally sick of your particular, Coulter/Limbaugh-influenced tripe.

At least i'm not the "Bush should die" liberal who convieniantly never gets picked up on any news station other than FOX.

It contributes nothing to the conversation, and it only worsens the divide between liberals and conservatives,

And that's what makes it fun.

Until you get out there and actually experience viewpoints other than your own...shut the fuck up.

You do realize you're telling me to shut up over the Internet right?

[UWDarDar17]

At 5/2/07 12:14 AM, Memorize wrote: You do realize you're telling me to shut up over the Internet right?

Stop wasting pixels.

[Ravariel]

Actually I heard Bush say one of the single most intelligent things I've ever witnessed come out of his mouth after he vetoed the funding bill.

I paraphrase:

Setting a timetable tells the insurgents exactly when they can best strike. They only need to set their watches, gather their forces, then take over the government once we're out.

He's absolutely right. Doing antyhing like that is giving vital tactical information to the people we want least to have it. Nevermind that in the minds of pretty much everyone, middle of 2008 is the unofficial deadline for "if it's gunna work, it will have by now". You don't need to set a legal timetable in stone. Everyone already knows what the score is. Putting it in writing only serves to help the efforts of the insurgency.

[UWDarDar17]

Why is it assumed that when a withdrawal timetable is created, that it will automatically become public knowledge and put all over the media?

Aren't battlefield operations typically considered matters of national security and therefore not something the public has to know?

I honestly do not think that the politicians are that stupid that they would actually publish a list saying "2000 troops leave by May, another 4000 by August".

[Memorize]

At 5/2/07 09:13 AM, UWDarDar17 wrote: Why is it assumed that when a withdrawal timetable is created, that it will automatically become public knowledge and put all over the media?

Because that's exactly what the media does.

[SuperDeagle]

At 5/2/07 09:13 AM, UWDarDar17 wrote: I honestly do not think that the politicians are that stupid that they would actually publish a list saying "2000 troops leave by May, another 4000 by August".

You do realize they have been announcing just that every week now?
If he vetoes our bill will just send him another, and another, and another!

Spittle

[HighlyIllogical]

He can veto them as quickly as Congress can send them.

Impeachment is sounding more and more like a viable option.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 5/2/07 04:36 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

Impeachment is sounding more and more like a viable option.

But thats the thing, there's no impeachable offense.

I mean, you can't do what you did about the first Johnson and make up some charge because you don't like him.

There has to be an offense.

[Battl3Mast3r]

Although I do support the war effort (I am NOT saying I support the reasons why we went in there, just saying that leaving now is not a bright idea) and the progressing security project in Iraq, the idea that "if you're not with us, you are against us" is logically fallacious (misrepresentation & manipulation of what choices are available to choose from) and should never be used either by conservitives or liberals.

[HighlyIllogical]

Hmmm...

I've got a few. Thought I already mentioned them, though.

How does charges of deliberately manipulating the american people, starting a war on false pretenses, violating the Geneva Conventions (!!!!), violating civil liberties (i.e. the USA PATRIOT ACT, an acronym, btw...and wiretapping), and (if we find evidence...) leaking the identity of a CIA operative (that's treason, people!), sound?

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 5/2/07 04:44 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

How does charges of deliberately manipulating the american people,

Yeah, thats called Politics.

starting a war on false pretenses,

No, faulty intelligence. You can't monday morning quaterback a decesion made during a certain time when our intelligence agencies were giving the OK.

violating the Geneva Conventions (!!!!),

Just like Clinton and every other President before that. Or the fact that these insurgents don't meet the standards set by the Geneva convention.

violating civil liberties (i.e. the USA PATRIOT ACT, an acronym, btw...and wiretapping),

You do realize that Congress makes laws, not the president. So you can't charge the president with somethign that Congress, on it's own, passed.

and (if we find evidence...) leaking the identity of a CIA operative (that's treason, people!), sound?

But, there's the thing. It probally won't.

I mean, I can deal with what if's too, but that doesn't solve the problems around us.

[HighlyIllogical]

Faulty intelligence? Since when?

People like Dick Clarke and Ambassador Joseph Wilson are who you need to listen to, clearly.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 5/2/07 04:51 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Faulty intelligence? Since when?

Colin Powell( someone who I respect immensly) went before the UN with the "intelligence" to argue for the invasion of Iraq. We have the NSA and the CIA vouching for the quality of the intelligence.

It's not a crime for the president to act on something when your intelligence experts and agencies vouch for it and say it's good.

People like Dick Clarke and Ambassador Joseph Wilson are who you need to listen to, clearly.

You mean overbiased and politicised agents who have something to gain.

Or good ol Dick Clarke, the same one that suggested that Saddam and Osama had a connection.

[JakeHero]

I thought you could only be in trouble for ousting an UNDERCOVER CIA operative not a clerk like Valerie.

Seriously, why the hell do libs look for the most frivolous reasons to impeach Bush? At least Clinton's hearings had legal grounding.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 5/1/07 11:49 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 5/1/07 02:38 PM, OptiPrime wrote: I got into an argument with someone the other day about the War effort in Iraq, and they came to the conclusion that if you don't support the Allies, you support the terrorists. And quite frankly, that's a crock of shit.

It's actually fairly close to the truth when you look at today's liberals.

Come on, that's like saying all of today's conservatives are like Pat Robertson. How many liberals do you actually know who support the insurgency? Those are far on the extreme end in the U.S. Dems here don't want the terrorists to win, they are just opposed to the war and the reasons for fighting it, and while some of their plans for it may be a bit shaky, their intent is not for the terrorists to win.

Personally I think GW went to Iraq for the wrong reasons, and regardless of how fuck-hopeless the situation is, not setting a deadline is the same as sitting behind his desk twiddling his thumbs,

And setting a timeline against the Military's wishes (cause, you know, what does the military know anyway right?) is so much better.

While I'm not so sure that a timeline is the best idea (some good arguments against it posted here), you should keep in mind that the military is under the control of the Executive Branch, so it is not surprising that their official position would be that of the President's.

[Memorize]

At 5/2/07 06:17 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

Come on, that's like saying all of today's conservatives are like Pat Robertson. How many liberals do you actually know who support the insurgency?

Apparently you missed the part afterwards where I stated how i was full of sarcasm.

Those are far on the extreme end in the U.S. Dems here don't want the terrorists to win,

Normal dems anyway.

But Hell, some of these "normal" dems we've elected in Congress are actually arguing to cut funding completely from Iraq and leaving the soldiers there with... nothing.

they are just opposed to the war

A war they vouched for under the same information Bush was given.

and the reasons for fighting it,

See above.

and while some of their plans for it may be a bit shaky, their intent is not for the terrorists to win.

Doesn't seem that way.

While I'm not so sure that a timeline is the best idea (some good arguments against it posted here), you should keep in mind that the military is under the control of the Executive Branch, so it is not surprising that their official position would be that of the President's.

Excuses, excuses.

But why blame me? I mean, especially if I take the word of a military strategist over congress men.