Murtha: Swift-Boating Another Viet Nam Vet - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Elphaba · 01-17-2006, 06:37 PM

Rovian attacks on Viet Nam veterans continue and Murtha is the new target. It was strategic for Bush 41 to declare Clinton a draft dodger, but Bush 43 (also a draft dodger) simply chooses the path of character assassination. I am greatly angered that those that served during wartime are being vilified for political purposes.

Truthout Link

Quote:

Murtha and the Mudslingers
By E.J. Dionne Jr.
The Washington Post

Tuesday 17 January 2006

I underestimated the viciousness of the right wing.

Last November, Rep. John Murtha, a Democrat and a decorated Marine combat veteran, came out for a rapid American withdrawal from Iraq. At the time, I wrote: "It will be difficult for Bush's acolytes to cast Murtha, who has regularly stood up for the military policies of Republican presidents during his 31 years in Congress, as some kind of extreme partisan or hippie protester."

No, the conservative hit squad didn't accuse Murtha of being a hippie. But a crowd that regularly defends President Bush for serving in the Texas Air National Guard instead of going to Vietnam has continued its war on actual Vietnam veterans. An outfit called the Cybercast News Service last week questioned the circumstances surrounding the awarding of two Purple Hearts to Murtha because of wounds he suffered in the Vietnam War.

John Kerry, as well as John McCain - who faced scurrilous attacks on his war record when he was running against Bush in the 2000 South Carolina primary - could have warned Murtha: If you're a Vietnam veteran, don't you dare get in the way of George W. Bush.

David Thibault, editor in chief of Cybercast, made it very clear to The Post's Howard Kurtz and Shailagh Murray that Murtha was facing accusations about his 1967 service now because "the congressman has really put himself in the forefront of the antiwar movement." In other words, if Murtha had just shut up and gone along with Bush, nothing would have been said about his service.

As it is, the charges are remarkably flimsy. Former representative Don Bailey (D-Pa.), whom Murtha defeated in a 1982 congressional primary after a redistricting, said that Murtha had told him he did not deserve his Purple Hearts, Kurtz and Murray reported. Bailey, who won a Silver Star and three Bronze Stars in Vietnam, recalled Murtha saying: "Hey, I didn't do anything like you did. I got a little scratch on the cheek."

Authentic war heroes (including McCain) often play down their own heroism. In any event, what we know about Murtha, McCain, Kerry and, yes, Bailey, is that they served in combat in Vietnam. What we know about Bush and Vice President Cheney ("I had other priorities in the '60s than military service'') is that they didn't.

What's maddening here is the unblushing hypocrisy of the right wing and the way it circulates - usually through Web sites or talk radio - personal vilification to abort honest political debate. Murtha's views on withdrawing troops from Iraq are certainly the object of legitimate contention. Many in Murtha's party disagree with him. But Murtha's right-wing critics can't content themselves with going after his ideas. They have to try to discredit his service.

Moreover, the right has demonstrated that its attitude toward military service is entirely opportunistic. In the 1992 presidential campaign, when the first President Bush confronted Bill Clinton - who, like Cheney, avoided military service entirely - conservatives could hardly speak or write a paragraph about Clinton that didn't accuse him of being a draft dodger. In October 1992, Bush himself assailed Clinton. "A lot of being president is about respect for that office and about telling the truth and serving your country," Bush told a crowd in New Jersey. "And you are all familiar with Governor Clinton's various stories on what he did to evade the draft."

But from 2000 forward, the Republicans had a problem: They confronted Democrats, first Al Gore and then John Kerry, who actually did go to Vietnam, while it was their own standard-bearers who had skipped the war. Suddenly, service in Vietnam wasn't the thing at all. When a Democrat went to war, there must have been something wrong with the way he did it. Gore's service was dismissed because he worked "only" as a military journalist. You can even find Bush's defenders back in 2000 daring to argue that flying planes over Texas was actually more dangerous than joining the Army and serving in Vietnam the way Gore did.

The Republicans had an even bigger problem with Kerry, who did unquestionably dangerous duty patrolling rivers. Not to worry. The Swift Boat Veterans simply smeared him.

"War's a nasty business," Murtha said on CBS's "60 Minutes" on Sunday. "It sears the soul. The shadow of friends killed, the shadow of killing people lives with you the rest of your life. So there's no experience like being in combat."

Unfortunately, politics is a nasty business, too. And there is no honor given to those who serve if they choose later to take on the powers that be.

I suppose this political hate speech is protected in some way, and I am not naive enough to believe this is a new invention for smearing opponents. I firmly believe that these sorts of machinations by either party do not serve our common good.

Does politics have to be a "nasty business?" There are very sharp minds here that I hope may have an alternative to our current "business as usual."

Rekna · 01-17-2006, 07:27 PM

I have a question for the conservitives on this board, do you think it is fair to smear someones war record? Did Mc'Cain deserve it? Did Kerry deserve it? Does Murtha deserve it? Is it ok to lie about someone in order to win an election?

alansmithee · 01-17-2006, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I have a question for the conservitives on this board, do you think it is fair to smear someones war record? Did Mc'Cain deserve it? Did Kerry deserve it? Does Murtha deserve it? Is it ok to lie about someone in order to win an election?

They are separate questions. If the medals were unfaily awarded, then yes it's ok to "smear" a war record, since the record is false.

At to if it's ok to lie about someone to win an election, I'm not so sure but it seems to be common practice from both parties in America, so I guess they find it ok.

Rekna · 01-17-2006, 09:29 PM

So were Mc'Cain's Kerry's and Murtha's medals unfairly awarded? If the medals were unfairly awarded does it change the fact that they put their lives on the line for their country?

irateplatypus · 01-17-2006, 11:05 PM

i love it.

some guy from Cybercast News Service questions a congressman's war record and the Washington Post runs an op/ed about the implications for all Republicans and/or Conservatives?

you can find people making all kinds of allegations about every public figure. making a big deal out of a specific instance just implies a particular political ax to grind.

i grow weary of these sort of articles... people only become indignant when the proponents of their own ideology are attacked, it has nothing to do civility or standards of decorum.

and i think it's time we put away the foolish notion that prior service guarantees authority on all defense/foreign policy issues.

highthief · 01-18-2006, 05:00 AM

I think anyone who didn't serve in a war zone has no right to criticize the courage of anyone who did, regardless of which party they are in (unless we're talking about someone being Pol Pot or something). I think this is a mistake on the part of the neo-cons - eventually, they can't fail but to alienate veterans who have served, if they keep attacking prominent veterans.

pan6467 · 01-18-2006, 06:02 AM

Beware the man who has no dirt, no past mistakes, no past transgressions for he will be the man most power hungry and evil.

NCB · 01-18-2006, 07:01 AM

Rovian? Swift Boat?

Let's just see what the vets have to say. This is a video i which Moran/Murtha was holding a moveone style "townhall" meeting. This vet pretty much tells Murtha and Moran to eat a cock. The look on Murthas face at the end tells it all

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004240.htm

Locobot · 01-18-2006, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Rovian? Swift Boat?

Let's just see what the vets have to say. This is a video i which Moran/Murtha was holding a moveone style "townhall" meeting. This vet pretty much tells Murtha and Moran to eat a cock. The look on Murthas face at the end tells it all

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004240.htm

hmmm an off-topic quibble about current troop moral, I'm sorry I wasted time downloading that. He doesn't tell them to "eat a cock" not even "pretty much." And I don't see how you were able to divine anything from Murtha's face which basically expressionless and distorted due to low video quality.

I think the big picture goal of what we're talking about here, the baseless and scurrilous accusations against veterans in politics, suits larger-picture goals of the Neo-Cons. Their goal seems to be to obfuscate the political process behind a shroud of emotional issues and to cause people to become frustrated with politics. They (the neo-cons) want a nasty mudslinging contest in elections. They want you to become apathetic and not pay attention to what they're doing. So fed up with political nastiness that you don't even feel like voting? That's a victory for the neo-cons who have a solid base of voters so scared of such pressing issues as boys kissing boys, the availability of automatic weaponry, and the omnipresence of the Ten Commandments in government buildings. The don't need a free thinker like you, why you might even change your mind!

Of course questioning the patriotism of someone like Max Cleland, who left both legs and an arm in Vietnam, is nothing for Rove in comparison to a faulty bit of evidence of GWBush's dereliction of duty making the evening news report. GWBush couldn't be bothered to show up for stateside duty with the "Champagne" division while John Kerry was running swift boat missions up the Mekong.

Imagine the utter shitfit there would have been if Clinton had questioned the patriotism of GHWBush or Bob Dole. It almost seems like a lost era today, substantive issues actually decided the outcome of elections rather than who can shout the loudest or make the most outrageous claims about their opponent.

roachboy · 01-18-2006, 08:20 AM

i wonder somtimes how the folk who are attracted to the discourse of morality and righteousness that emenates like a foul brown haze from the right manage to square that discourse with the bottom-feeding sleaze machine that you see now attacking murtha--presumably for having the audacity to criticize the bushsquad and--more dangerous still--to imply by doing so that folk who have passed through the military are not necessarily of one mind.

perhaps the right thinks it better to distract with idiocy like this than to look at what might have prompted someone like murtha to come out against the bushwar--you know, stuff like this:

Quote:

Official US agency paints dire picture of 'out-of-control' Iraq

· Analysis issued by USAid in reconstruction effort
· Account belies picture painted by White House

Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday January 18, 2006
The Guardian

An official assessment drawn up by the US foreign aid agency depicts the security situation in Iraq as dire, amounting to a "social breakdown" in which criminals have "almost free rein".

The "conflict assessment" is an attachment to an invitation to contractors to bid on a project rehabilitating Iraqi cities published earlier this month by the US Agency for International Development (USAid).

The picture it paints is not only darker than the optimistic accounts from the White House and the Pentagon, it also gives a more complex profile of the insurgency than the straightforward "rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists" described by George Bush.

The USAid analysis talks of an "internecine conflict" involving religious, ethnic, criminal and tribal groups. "It is increasingly common for tribesmen to 'turn in' to the authorities enemies as insurgents - this as a form of tribal revenge," the paper says, casting doubt on the efficacy of counter-insurgent sweeps by coalition and Iraqi forces.

Meanwhile, foreign jihadist groups are growing in strength, the report said.

"External fighters and organisations such as al-Qaida and the Iraqi offshoot led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are gaining in number and notoriety as significant actors," USAid's assessment said. "Recruitment into the ranks of these organisations takes place throughout the Sunni Muslim world, with most suicide bombers coming from Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region."

The assessment conflicted sharply with recent Pentagon claims that Zarqawi's group was in "disarray".

The USAid document was attached to project documents for the Focused Stabilisation in Strategic Cities Initiative, a $1.3bn (£740m) project to curb violence in cities such as Baghdad, Basra, Mosul, Kirkuk and Najaf, through job creation and investment in local communities.

The paper, whose existence was first reported by the Washington Post, argues that insurgent attacks "significantly damage the country's infrastructure and cause a tide of adverse economic and social effects that ripple across Iraq".

"In the social breakdown that has accompanied the defeat of Saddam Hussein's regime criminal elements within Iraqi society have had almost free rein," the document says. "In the absence of an effective police force capable of ensuring public safety, criminal elements flourish ... Baghdad is reportedly divided into zones controlled by organised criminal groups-clans."

The lawlessness has had an impact on basic freedoms, USAid argues, particularly in the south, where "social liberties have been curtailed dramatically by roving bands of self-appointed religious-moral police". USAid officials did not respond to calls seeking comment yesterday.

Judith Yaphe, a former CIA expert on Iraq now teaching at the National Defence University in Washington, said while the administration's pronouncements on security were rosy, the USAid version was pessimistic. "It's a very difficult environment, but if I read this right, they are saying there is violence everywhere and I don't think it's true," Ms Yaphe said. She said USAid could have published the document to pressure the White House to increase its funding. The administration does not intend to request more reconstruction funds after the end of this year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1688730,00.html

on the other hand, with this you see the right continuing its campaign of rewriting the history of vietnam, wedging it into the old far right favorite trope, that of the "heroic and unified military" engaged in a "noble fight" that found itself "stabbed in the back" by evil dissent. this narrative is foundational to the contemporary right--and while conservative sleaze defenses of this ridiculous "interpretation" of vietnam are not surprising, given the status of the narrative they float, what is surprising is that anyone, anywhere, takes this seriously.

but apparently some do: ncb's post above ("let's see what the vets say" as opposed to what murtha says, therefore murtha is not a vet--blah blah blah) repeats this kind of "logic"---it must have some aesthetic appeal then to at least some elements of the lumpenconservative set...but what that appeal is---like i said---remains a mystery---and i am not sure that i would expect any distance or explanation from the right for this. but maybe i'm wrong about this last one--surprise me.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-18-2006, 03:16 PM

Kerry is a traitor, if I had my way I would have hung him surrounding any of his "dissent".

Murtha is just to me a moron, his actions were not only misguided and stupid, but like much of the left and their "dissent" dangerously mirrors providing aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war, with troops on the ground.

You people really don't get it, Osama and his ilk love you, just as the VC loved Hanoi Jane. Your actions are killing people, they are not helping the situation. For right or wrong vietnam happened, for right or wrong so Iraq happened; but your cut your nose to spite your face mentality, your cowardly words and actions do not help the situation. As if it is not bad enough that people want a full scale withdrawal, if it were to be achieved it would make thinks in the world, in Iraq, in America worse ten fold. All you do is embolden the enemy and give them a glimpse of a cowardly America with no spine, determination, or grit. You means are not justified by themselves, nor would they be by the end you seek.

You are the paper tiger.

silent_jay · 01-18-2006, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Kerry is a traitor, if I had my way I would have hung him surrounding any of his "dissent".

Murtha is just to me a moron, his actions were not only misguided and stupid, but like much of the left and their "dissent" dangerously mirrors providing aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war, with troops on the ground.

You people really don't get it, Osama and his ilk love you, just as the VC loved Hanoi Jane. Your actions are killing people, they are not helping the situation. For right or wrong vietnam happened, for right or wrong so Iraq happened; but your cut your nose to spite your face mentality, your cowardly words and actions do not help the situation. As if it is not bad enough that people want a full scale withdrawal, if it were to be achieved it would make thinks in the world, in Iraq, in America worse ten fold. All you do is embolden the enemy and give them a glimpse of a cowardly America with no spine, determination, or grit. You means are not justified by themselves, nor would they be by the end you seek.

You are the paper tiger.

At least Kerry had the balls to go and fight, unlike dubya, who hid out in the NG Kerry has the right to voice his dissent as does Murtha, they've seen war and what the results are to the people involved. They are very qualified to voice their views and disagreement on this situation, unlike dubya who isn't in my opinion qualified to lead a war when he didn't have the parts to go and fight one.

So let me get this straight, you're saying that anyone on the left who doesn't support the war, and voices their dissent is providing aid to the enemy? Seems to be the typical neo-con way of 'if you're not with us, you're against us', maybe someday the neo-cons will see that things aren't that easy.

Locobot · 01-18-2006, 04:10 PM

Mojo apparently you prefer the narrative delivered to you by people who have never been to war... that's your right as wrongheaded as it may be. It's also the right of true American patriot heroes like John Kerry, John Murtha, and Jane Fonda to question the actions of THEIR country. If true American patriot heroes like Jane Fonda and John Kerry hadn't stepped up and told America what was actually going on in Vietnam we'd in all likelihood still be sending our young there to die. Ultimately of course what changed U.S. opinion over Vietnam was the switch to a random lottery draft system (1969 I think) that didn't just pull conscripts from minority and economically destitute social strata. Who was the paper tiger in that instance?

Mojo your belief that wars just occur "for right or wrong" is pretty disturbing. Decisions were made by real people at every step to escalate these conflicts (I recommend "Fog of War" if you haven't already seen it). It also takes real people, American patriot heroes, to end these conflicts.

Elphaba · 01-18-2006, 04:10 PM

Back button.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-18-2006, 04:11 PM

It's not the "If you are not with me you are against me at all". It's just that Liberals don't merely stop at not supporting the war, and their "dissent" (if that's what you want to call it), or a lot of it, isn't helping the situation, it is making things worse and some of it goes so far it is treasonous. It's baffling to me that Americans dislike Shrub sooo much they want to see us lose this conflict. As for underestimating my assesment of the situation and it's ease, I can live with that. Can you live with the fact that people like you and your whole mentality is wrong though?

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-18-2006, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locobot

Mojo apparently you prefer the narrative delivered to you by people who have never been to war... that's your right as wrongheaded as it may be. It's also the right of true American patriot heroes like John Kerry, John Murtha, and Jane Fonda to question the actions of THEIR country. If true American patriot heroes like Jane Fonda and John Kerry hadn't stepped up and told America what was actually going on in Vietnam we'd in all likelihood still be sending our young there to die. Ultimately of course what changed U.S. opinion over Vietnam was the switch to a random lottery draft system (1969 I think) that didn't just pull conscripts from minority and economically destitute social strata. Who was the paper tiger in that instance?

Mojo your belief that wars just occur "for right or wrong" is pretty disturbing. Decisions were made by real people at every step to escalate these conflicts (I recommend "Fog of War" if you haven't already seen it). It also takes real people, American patriot heroes, to end these conflicts.

Kerry an American hero? A proven and admitted purgerer, an admitted liar, who turned on his fellow country men is a hero?

Hanoi Jane and her spit in the face of the GI's mentality, providing aid and comfort to the enemy at a national and surreal level, is a hero?

I don't care for politicians or their agenda's/means/nor motives. I do care about the troops, my fellow country men who found themselves in a terribly fucked situation in Nam, and now so in Iraq. But I am not delusional and I realize that we are past the point of no return, you people are fighting for a moot point and ideal, there cannot be retreat from this, it would be so monumentally disasterous that I actually question your reasoning, and I guess this is me being a typical neo-con, your patriotism.

How is my "for right or wrong" mentality disturbing? It is amoral, and it only signifies that fact this is out of all of our hands, and again we are past the point of no return.

And not to be rude, but I don't know if you understand the paper tiger line. But the reasoning (and reality) of the statement is that if you bloody America's nose we cut and run, liberals in this country have done nothing but drive this home as a reality for all of our enemies.

roachboy · 01-18-2006, 04:33 PM

from time to time you get a glimpse of the authoritarian aspects of conservativeland--like mojo, they really don't like folk who think differently than they do and apparently enjoy indulging in murder fantasies in connection with this.
to wit:

Quote:

Kerry is a traitor, if I had my way I would have hung him surrounding any of his "dissent".

and, like mojo, the prefer to blame critique for the problems created by incompetence and duplicity from their own ranks (the case for war in iraq, the way it has been carried out, etc etc etc)
maybe there will sometime be nice camps in rural areas where the right can send the "traitors" they seem to dream of rounding up and eliminating.
and if this happens and anyone now without particular political committments were to say anything in protest, there would be space in these nice camps for them as well.

anyway, mojo's frothing posts give an indication of why the right wants to indulge in wholesale revisionism concerning vietnam and why they allow sleazoids like the swift boat crew to operate.
if they can convince folk that vietnam was not a war predictated on lies and run with the greatest incompetence with the result of decimation of vietnam and fundamental political problems n the states that have not and will not go away, then it becomes all the easier to make the same kind of surreal claims regarding iraq.
this is also an explanation for why the right sees no problem with the near-dictatorial notions of executive authority the bush squad has run with for the past few years.
they don't like dissent.
they dont like disagreement.
they really dont like democracy.
they like the word, but that's as far as it goes.
where the rest of the planet sees debacle, they see a reason to stand firm, question nothing, go along with whichever republican is in power. so long as it is a republican.
it is kind of sad and kind of laughable at the same time.

Locobot · 01-18-2006, 04:51 PM

Well whether you like the truth or not it takes bravery, of heroic proportions, to speak that truth to power as John Kerry, Jane Fonda, and now John Murtha have done. It is the cowardly position to sit back and slander the records of people who have served and spoken as true American patriot heroes.

The point about escalation is that there in no clean slate where our past actions are not relevant. You can't build a palace on a pile of shit.

No one in Iraq "bloodied our nose" prior to 2003 hence your confusion over the paper tiger claims. Murtha has not suggested that we "cut and run" as Bush likes to straw-man characterize. He's simply saying that our current position is not sustainable (see Roachboy's post above). We have a choice of full-blown colonialism or of ceding our power to the Iraqi people.

It's disgusting to me that people like Murtha, Powell, and Shinseki who actually learned the lessons of Vietnam first hand have been so thoroughly shunned by the chickenhawks in power.

Rekna · 01-18-2006, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Kerry is a traitor, if I had my way I would have hung him surrounding any of his "dissent".

Murtha is just to me a moron, his actions were not only misguided and stupid, but like much of the left and their "dissent" dangerously mirrors providing aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war, with troops on the ground.

You people really don't get it, Osama and his ilk love you, just as the VC loved Hanoi Jane. Your actions are killing people, they are not helping the situation. For right or wrong vietnam happened, for right or wrong so Iraq happened; but your cut your nose to spite your face mentality, your cowardly words and actions do not help the situation. As if it is not bad enough that people want a full scale withdrawal, if it were to be achieved it would make thinks in the world, in Iraq, in America worse ten fold. All you do is embolden the enemy and give them a glimpse of a cowardly America with no spine, determination, or grit. You means are not justified by themselves, nor would they be by the end you seek.

You are the paper tiger.

mojo posts like this make you sound like a raving lunatic

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-18-2006, 05:41 PM

I don't get it. People here seem to think that I am not ok with people dissenting, that I am some raving lunatic after a one Dubya world order. I don't care that people don't agree with the war, I don't care if you dissent. All I'm saying is a lot of what I hear isn't dissent, it is treasonous.

Sorry for calling a spade a spade i ny book.

Elphaba · 01-18-2006, 06:03 PM

Mojo, perhaps it would help us understand your perspective, if you specifically cite our comments here that you view as treasonous and your reasons for thinking so.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-18-2006, 06:18 PM

It isn't so much specific comments here or anywhere. As far as all that goes, not to many are so brash as to say anything that could be directly equated as treason. But that's not to say the mental, the rational, the sentiments do not equate as such. People everywhere hate Bush so much they want us to fail in Iraq, they would be vindicated by it. I hate the cut and run mentality, I hate people politicking with the lives of soldiers, making demands that serve no realistic goal except to be partisan. It then pisses me off when said demands would only further impede war efforts, demoralize the troops further, and most importantly play directly into the enemies hands.

For me it doesn't matter anymore that you don't like Bush, that you don't agree with the Iraqi invasion or our continued presence there. People need to realize, that there words and actions have become irrelevant to any means of achieving their goals, doesn't mean there might not be merit to them or that they shouldn't have the right to say them; it's like this things in life are the way they are in cases, sometimes it's all good sometimes it sucks, but there comes a point when you have to pony up and realize that you cannot change the way things are, and it would then become prudent to realize that maybe just maybe your words are doing more harm then good.

Does that make any sense?

Elphaba · 01-18-2006, 06:25 PM

Mojo, I greatly appreciate the sincerity of your response. Allow me some time to give it the consideration it deserves.

shakran · 01-18-2006, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

It's not the "If you are not with me you are against me at all". It's just that Liberals don't merely stop at not supporting the war, and their "dissent" (if that's what you want to call it), or a lot of it, isn't helping the situation, it is making things worse and some of it goes so far it is treasonous.

Back it up. I mean it. Gimme your sources, or it's pointless to pay attention to you. How can dissent of a war make a situation worse? Going to war in the first place is what made the situation worse. Not giving the troops the numbers or equipment they needed to do the job they should not have been doing in the first place, made the situation worse.

Circular arguments like the one you put forward are nothing more than Rovian bullshit. "We're going to war. Those who are with us are patriots. Those who disagree with us are not only traitors, but they're making the war, that we started in the first place, worse." The neocons have managed to scare the crap out of the people enough to get the people to go along with their bullshit war against someone who didn't do anything to us, but I think that you're going to find it harder and harder to justify the actions of your party with fear as time goes on and people start waking up to the fact that, hey, we're still just as vulnerable as we used to be, only now we've wasted a lot of effort by going after the wrong guy.

Quote:

It's baffling to me that Americans dislike Shrub sooo much they want to see us lose this conflict.

It's baffling to me that you think that. Sure some probably feel that way. Protesting the war and wanting us to withdraw does not mean we want to see our soldiers defeated on the battlefield. It's baffling to me that you think wanting the soldiers to stay alive shows a lack of support for the soldiers. It's baffling to me that you think this war is winnable. It's baffling to me that you don't realize we lost this war before we fired the first shot.

By the way, has anyone noticed that all those terror alerts (condition ORANGE! DUCT TAPE YOUR HOUSES!) that seemed to be issued every 3 minutes BEFORE the election, haven't been issued SINCE the election? Gosh, either that means the terrorists decided that November was their cutoff date for threatening us, or, far more obviously, that the terror alert level crap was just another example of how Bush and his warhawks use fear to bring the people in line.

Frankly, I don't think we need an administration who thinks Orwell's 1984 is an instruction manual.

JumpinJesus · 01-18-2006, 09:58 PM

I rarely post in politics due to the fact that I have neither the time nor the inclination to get involved in some volley of political posturing that ends up going nowhere in the long run. However, every now and then something compels me to respond.

comments like this:

Quote:

You people really don't get it, Osama and his ilk love you, just as the VC loved Hanoi Jane. Your actions are killing people,

baffle me. What does Osama have to do with the war in Iraq?

We then read this:

Quote:

All I'm saying is a lot of what I hear isn't dissent, it is treasonous.

When asked for specific comments that could be construed as treason, we get:

Quote:

It isn't so much specific comments here or anywhere.

I don't even know how to respond to such nonsense. We're to believe that we're being treasonous, but you can't point to any comments that would qualify as treasonous? Huh? What, to you, is the difference between dissent and treason in this case?

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-18-2006, 10:03 PM

Osama pertains a lot to Iraq seeing as to there is a significant Al Qaeda base coupled with the insurgency, thus in the context of this conversation, Osama has everything to do with Iraq.

If you read the above section of the quote you selectively quoted, you would read how I wrote that I know people on the defeatist/Anti Bush crowd I am talking about don't straight up say anything overtly treasonous, because they are politicking and want to come off like they completely support the troops when in fact they don't. It's the mentality and your ideal "ends" that are the primary problem.

shakran · 01-18-2006, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Osama pertains a lot to Iraq seeing as to there is a significant Al Qaeda base coupled with the insurgency, thus in the context of this conversation, Osama has everything to do with Iraq.

Let's get something straight here. The insurgency is there BECAUSE we invaded Iraq. So once again you give us a circular argument. You try to justify the war by stating a condition that arose because of the war. Sorry, try again.

Quote:

If you read the above section of the quote you selectively quoted, you would read how I wrote that I know people on the defeatist/Anti Bush crowd I am talking about don't straight up say anything overtly treasonous, because they are politicking and want to come off like they completely support the troops when in fact they don't. It's the mentality and your ideal "ends" that are the primary problem.

and if you read above the selection of the quote you are trying to justify you'll see this little gem:

Quote:

People here seem to think that I am not ok with people dissenting, that I am some raving lunatic after a one Dubya world order. I don't care that people don't agree with the war, I don't care if you dissent. All I'm saying is a lot of what I hear isn't dissent, it is treasonous.

Now, this indicates that either you are trying to worm your way out of a hole you dug for yourself, or you failed grammar.

You either DID accuse us of being treasonous, for some reason thinking we wouldn't call you on it, and then when we DID call you on it, you tried to wiggle out of the trap you'd set for yourself.

Either that OR you are unaware that a paragraph is supposed to contain a single subject theme. If you talk about "people here" in your paragraph, and then fail to specify "people in places other than here" in later sentences in that same paragraph, then you are, whether you are good enough with grammar to realize it or not, talking about "people here" throughout the entire paragraph.

Now, I've read your posts before and you don't seem to have any glaring issues with grammar. So how do you explain what you said? I'll give you a hint - the people here are a bit better informed than the average American, so using the old republican trick of pretending you never said it now that you're caught will not work.

irateplatypus · 01-18-2006, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silent_jay

At least Kerry had the balls to go and fight, unlike dubya, who hid out in the NG Kerry has the right to voice his dissent as does Murtha, they've seen war and what the results are to the people involved. They are very qualified to voice their views and disagreement on this situation, unlike dubya who isn't in my opinion qualified to lead a war when he didn't have the parts to go and fight one.

the President isn't qualified to run a war because he joined the guard and never saw combat? and yet, many of those who make this point (and i have heard a number of permutations of this same argument) want people to take their own opinions on the war seriously... though they wouldn't dream of putting themselves into military service.

disingenuous at best.

shakran · 01-18-2006, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

the President isn't qualified to run a war because he joined the guard and never saw combat? and yet, many of those who make this point

I can only assume that by this statement you include past republican campaigns in which candidates such as Clinton were bashed for not having military service in their background. See, this is where the republicans don't get it. They want to set the ground rules (not having had military service is bad) but then they want to change them whenever it suits them (Bush skipped out on duty!)

Trouble is, if you have as a major point in entire campaigns that not having military experience means a poor leader, then you have to expect it to bite you in the butt when you back a guy without military experience.

JumpinJesus · 01-18-2006, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Osama pertains a lot to Iraq seeing as to there is a significant Al Qaeda base coupled with the insurgency, thus in the context of this conversation, Osama has everything to do with Iraq.

If you read the above section of the quote you selectively quoted, you would read how I wrote that I know people on the defeatist/Anti Bush crowd I am talking about don't straight up say anything overtly treasonous, because they are politicking and want to come off like they completely support the troops when in fact they don't. It's the mentality and your ideal "ends" that are the primary problem.

And that Al Qaeda base existed before the war or as a result of it?

As far as selectively quoting, I did so out of a desire to not flood my post with a recitation of every post I pulled these comments from. Regardless, I did not alter your words, which, I quote again:

Quote:

All I'm saying is a lot of what I hear isn't dissent, it is treasonous.

And this as well (I'll even highlight it):

Quote:

It's just that Liberals don't merely stop at not supporting the war, and their "dissent" (if that's what you want to call it), or a lot of it, isn't helping the situation, it is making things worse and some of it goes so far it is treasonous.

so, yes, you did call it straight up treason. Twice you used the phrase "...it is treasonous." How is it treasonous? And I'm still curious to know what you believe to be the difference between dissent and treason in this case. Also, how is a mentality treasonous?

I ask these questions because it seems to be a favorite tactic of the war supporters to quell dissent by calling it treason. I'm guessing the hope is that those of us who question the motives, rationale, and execution of this debacle will somehow so fear the connotation of treason that we will shut up and go away. This will not happen. In fact, we will become even more bold and demand that those who call our words treason either back their claims up with strong evidence or cease using such empty vitriol. We will then demand an accounting of why we entered this war in the first place. THAT, I'm guessing, is the real reason why so many have resorted to the treason argument: to obfuscate the real debate.

To this end, I'm challenging you to back that claim up or retract it because frankly, many of us are growing a bit weary of such an empty claim.

irateplatypus · 01-18-2006, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

I can only assume that by this statement you include past republican campaigns in which candidates such as Clinton were bashed for not having military service in their background. See, this is where the republicans don't get it. They want to set the ground rules (not having had military service is bad) but then they want to change them whenever it suits them (Bush skipped out on duty!)

Trouble is, if you have as a major point in entire campaigns that not having military experience means a poor leader, then you have to expect it to bite you in the butt when you back a guy without military experience.

"they do it too!" is a very ordinary defense.

shakran · 01-18-2006, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

"they do it too!" is a very ordinary defense.

Agreed. It's one perfected by the republicans in fact. My defense wasn't "they did it too." In fact, I didn't even mount a defense. I pointed out something - and that something was "They set the stage by saying military service should be a prerequisite. I expect them to live up to their words."

In other words I expect you guys to be honest. Either conform with what you say your opponents have to conform to, or admit you were wrong and quit bringing it up whenever it suits you.

irateplatypus · 01-18-2006, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Agreed. It's one perfected by the republicans in fact. My defense wasn't "they did it too." In fact, I didn't even mount a defense. I pointed out something - and that something was "They set the stage by saying military service should be a prerequisite. I expect them to live up to their words."

In other words I expect you guys to be honest. Either conform with what you say your opponents have to conform to, or admit you were wrong and quit bringing it up whenever it suits you.

i agree that there should be a single standard. i do not think you do discussion a service by projecting your notions of a political party on individuals... when you say "you", you're either doing just that or making an erroneous assumption about my position.

shakran · 01-18-2006, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

i agree that there should be a single standard. i do not think you do discussion a service by projecting your notions of a political party on individuals... when you say "you", you're either doing just that or making an erroneous assumption about my position.

If you're not a republican then I apologize. But it's pretty natural to assume you are, since every post I can think of that I've seen by you in this forum has been pretty much exactly what a republican would say.

How DO you identify yourself?

irateplatypus · 01-18-2006, 11:32 PM

of course i'm a republican. but that's not even the point... i'm a conservative. being a republican is incidental. i could'nt care less about the party apart from how it serves as a vehicle for advancing my ideas/principles. i'm increasingly disappointed with the GOPs lack of fiscal restraint, i think i'll switch to the Libertarian party soon.

and you must recognize that the republican party has MILLIONS of members. there are at least representatives of every race, social background, sexual orientation, income strata etc. etc. if you paid attention to how the GOP base turned on the President when he nominated Harriet Miers for the vacant Supreme Court seat, it's quite obvious that republican thought is far from monolithic. to say that someone always sounds like a "republican" is meaningless.

as TFP's own garrulous and grandilloquent roachboy might say, such a worldview lacks nuance. you must not employ such presumptive hubris in your closed up Gore-world. what function this category of memes serve in the liberal mind, i do not know. painting people in broad brush strokes is xenophobic, bordering on the most vile racist roots of the rising neo-fascism.

just joking.

very plainly, i don't care about whether a person is a democrat or republican... especially as it relates to the role of military service in their politics.

Marvelous Marv · 01-19-2006, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Back it up. I mean it. Gimme your sources, or it's pointless to pay attention to you. How can dissent of a war make a situation worse? Going to war in the first place is what made the situation worse. Not giving the troops the numbers or equipment they needed to do the job they should not have been doing in the first place, made the situation worse.

This above statement in red is hereby awarded first prize in my "ignorance of war and the military" contest.

I recommend you buy, or check out from the library, "In Love and War" by James and Sybil Stockdale. Or pretty much ANY book written by someone who was a POW in Vietnam.

Then, try sending a message to any Vietnam POW and ask him his opinion of Kerry. I've met over thirty of them, and gotten quite an earful.

Oh, that's right. Last time I said something like this, you announced I was "bullshitting," and I don't REALLY know the people I say I do. Keep that up, and I might get motivated enough to prove it.

Especially if you're a betting man.

Marvelous Marv · 01-19-2006, 12:22 AM

Oh, here's something that was circulating on the POW network in December. It's a cut-and-paste from the POW I know best:

Quote:

I am sending the following for a chuckle as to how we as POW's felt about the "liberal" press who through individual noteriety showed up at the POW camps in North Vietnam and were used for propaganda purposes against us. This issue has been bantered across the POW net in recent weeks and I thought you might like to see how "impassionate" some of my jailmates are:

What some one said about Walter Cronkite regarding his visit to a POW camp in NVN:

"far from a "sob" or a "forked tongue," he stood up for the principles he
believed in and always supported the american fighting man, if not the
administration. too bad we don't have more of his ilk on major tv networks
today---vice the talking- heads who have succumbed to headlines, ratings,
and money."

A POw friend's response. This particular POW was forced to see Cronkite in Hanoi in early 1969:
>
"He is the SOB who said during the TET offensive that the war was lost . The
only thing that he ever did was set a bad example and create the likes of
Rather, Jennings, Arnett etc. He was a great ally to the gook propaganda
machine and one of the biggest contributers to the fallacy that we were losing
the war militarily. If he is your media hero, fine , you can have him to
yourself--------To me he is a selfserving low life scumsucking liberal
untruthful son of a mangy bitch. He is your hero NOT mine. Sorry that I cannot make it
clearer. GB and Happy New Year" [note: "GB" is the usual sign off that was tapped thru the walls... means simply, "God Bless"]. We are indeed a quiet, placid lot...!

HAPPY NEW YEAR,

highthief · 01-19-2006, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

anyway, mojo's frothing posts give an indication of why the right wants to indulge in wholesale revisionism concerning vietnam and why they allow sleazoids like the swift boat crew to operate.
if they can convince folk that vietnam was not a war predictated on lies and run with the greatest incompetence with the result of decimation of vietnam and fundamental political problems n the states that have not and will not go away, then it becomes all the easier to make the same kind of surreal claims regarding iraq.

A very astute observation. The entire Chinese political system used to run like this. Criticize one thing, as a cover for criticizing something else.

shakran · 01-19-2006, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

what function this category of memes serve in the liberal mind, i do not know. painting people in broad brush strokes is xenophobic, bordering on the most vile racist roots of the rising neo-fascism.

Wow. The irony meter just exploded. You paint all of us with a broad brush in order to protest being painted with a broad brush?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

He is the SOB who said during the TET offensive that the war was lost .

Yes, and he was right, wasn't he? The job of a journalist is to report the truth, even if it upsets the warmongers. Vietnam was lost, and blaming it on cronkite is about as disingenuous as it gets. Vietnam was lost because our fighting strategy was appallingly stupid. Take a hill, then go away, wait for the VC to take it back, then go take it again. Who the hell came up with that? Sure as hell it was lost before we even got into it.

Quote:

This above statement in red is hereby awarded first prize in my "ignorance of war and the military" contest.

And that one is awarded first prize in the "I don't like freedom of speech" contest. This idea that the public has to shut up when we're in a war, even if it's an unjust, immoral, illegal war that was justified with lies on top of lies, and even if thousands of American soldiers are dying and many thousands more are coming away maimed for life is ridiculous. By your logic, once someone lies, cheats, and steals us into a war, they've won 100%, and no one can ever say anything against it again. Sorry, we're not buying it.

Quote:

Oh, that's right. Last time I said something like this, you announced I was "bullshitting," and I don't REALLY know the people I say I do. Keep that up, and I might get motivated enough to prove it.

Wouldn't that be refreshing.

And your quote - the guy's running around calling people "gooks," his quote is laced with profanity, and shows his shining ignorance to what was actually going on. Cronkite was reporting the facts. Others took those facts and actively tried to bring people like your friend home, because they realized that we shouldn't be over there, and it wasn't right to ask the young men in the military to sacrifice their lives, their limbs, and their health (look up agent orange if you want an idea of health problems vietnam vets are STILL going through today, and that's only a small part of the problem) for a war that we was none of our business, not our problem, and that we shouldn't have been in.

I say those who support bringing the troops home are far more supportive of the troops themselves than are the people who support sending them out to be killed and maimed for nothing.

Rekna · 01-19-2006, 07:13 AM

Dissenting from a war one believes is unjust is the most patriotic thing a person can do. The people who fought to bring our troups home from VN and now from Iraq are heros, more so than some of our troups.

In the words of Albus Dumbledoor "It takes a great deal of curage to stand up to one's enemies but it takes a great deal more to stand up to one's friends".

It is in the constitution that if we question our government's actions we are to stand up to them and let them know it. And if they don't listen to what the people are saying then it is our duty to make them change.

Calling people who stand up for what they believe right cowards and treasonist is the weakest argument that I ever had and is nothing more than hate speach and rhetoric. It has no merit and i'd appreciate it if you'd stop making me out to be a terrorist who hates america.

01-17-2006, 11:05 PM	#5 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	i love it. some guy from Cybercast News Service questions a congressman's war record and the Washington Post runs an op/ed about the implications for all Republicans and/or Conservatives? you can find people making all kinds of allegations about every public figure. making a big deal out of a specific instance just implies a particular political ax to grind. i grow weary of these sort of articles... people only become indignant when the proponents of their own ideology are attacked, it has nothing to do civility or standards of decorum. and i think it's time we put away the foolish notion that prior service guarantees authority on all defense/foreign policy issues. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

01-18-2006, 05:00 AM	#6 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	I think anyone who didn't serve in a war zone has no right to criticize the courage of anyone who did, regardless of which party they are in (unless we're talking about someone being Pol Pot or something). I think this is a mistake on the part of the neo-cons - eventually, they can't fail but to alienate veterans who have served, if they keep attacking prominent veterans. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

01-18-2006, 06:02 AM	#7 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Beware the man who has no dirt, no past mistakes, no past transgressions for he will be the man most power hungry and evil. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

01-18-2006, 03:16 PM	#11 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Kerry is a traitor, if I had my way I would have hung him surrounding any of his "dissent". Murtha is just to me a moron, his actions were not only misguided and stupid, but like much of the left and their "dissent" dangerously mirrors providing aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war, with troops on the ground. You people really don't get it, Osama and his ilk love you, just as the VC loved Hanoi Jane. Your actions are killing people, they are not helping the situation. For right or wrong vietnam happened, for right or wrong so Iraq happened; but your cut your nose to spite your face mentality, your cowardly words and actions do not help the situation. As if it is not bad enough that people want a full scale withdrawal, if it were to be achieved it would make thinks in the world, in Iraq, in America worse ten fold. All you do is embolden the enemy and give them a glimpse of a cowardly America with no spine, determination, or grit. You means are not justified by themselves, nor would they be by the end you seek. You are the paper tiger. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-18-2006, 04:11 PM	#15 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	It's not the "If you are not with me you are against me at all". It's just that Liberals don't merely stop at not supporting the war, and their "dissent" (if that's what you want to call it), or a lot of it, isn't helping the situation, it is making things worse and some of it goes so far it is treasonous. It's baffling to me that Americans dislike Shrub sooo much they want to see us lose this conflict. As for underestimating my assesment of the situation and it's ease, I can live with that. Can you live with the fact that people like you and your whole mentality is wrong though? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-17-2006, 07:27 PM	#2 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I have a question for the conservitives on this board, do you think it is fair to smear someones war record? Did Mc'Cain deserve it? Did Kerry deserve it? Does Murtha deserve it? Is it ok to lie about someone in order to win an election?

01-17-2006, 09:29 PM	#4 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	So were Mc'Cain's Kerry's and Murtha's medals unfairly awarded? If the medals were unfairly awarded does it change the fact that they put their lives on the line for their country?

01-18-2006, 04:10 PM	#13 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	Mojo apparently you prefer the narrative delivered to you by people who have never been to war... that's your right as wrongheaded as it may be. It's also the right of true American patriot heroes like John Kerry, John Murtha, and Jane Fonda to question the actions of THEIR country. If true American patriot heroes like Jane Fonda and John Kerry hadn't stepped up and told America what was actually going on in Vietnam we'd in all likelihood still be sending our young there to die. Ultimately of course what changed U.S. opinion over Vietnam was the switch to a random lottery draft system (1969 I think) that didn't just pull conscripts from minority and economically destitute social strata. Who was the paper tiger in that instance? Mojo your belief that wars just occur "for right or wrong" is pretty disturbing. Decisions were made by real people at every step to escalate these conflicts (I recommend "Fog of War" if you haven't already seen it). It also takes real people, American patriot heroes, to end these conflicts.

01-18-2006, 04:10 PM	#14 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Back button.

01-18-2006, 04:51 PM	#18 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	Well whether you like the truth or not it takes bravery, of heroic proportions, to speak that truth to power as John Kerry, Jane Fonda, and now John Murtha have done. It is the cowardly position to sit back and slander the records of people who have served and spoken as true American patriot heroes. The point about escalation is that there in no clean slate where our past actions are not relevant. You can't build a palace on a pile of shit. No one in Iraq "bloodied our nose" prior to 2003 hence your confusion over the paper tiger claims. Murtha has not suggested that we "cut and run" as Bush likes to straw-man characterize. He's simply saying that our current position is not sustainable (see Roachboy's post above). We have a choice of full-blown colonialism or of ceding our power to the Iraqi people. It's disgusting to me that people like Murtha, Powell, and Shinseki who actually learned the lessons of Vietnam first hand have been so thoroughly shunned by the chickenhawks in power.

01-18-2006, 05:41 PM	#20 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I don't get it. People here seem to think that I am not ok with people dissenting, that I am some raving lunatic after a one Dubya world order. I don't care that people don't agree with the war, I don't care if you dissent. All I'm saying is a lot of what I hear isn't dissent, it is treasonous. Sorry for calling a spade a spade i ny book. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-18-2006, 06:03 PM	#21 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Mojo, perhaps it would help us understand your perspective, if you specifically cite our comments here that you view as treasonous and your reasons for thinking so.

01-18-2006, 06:18 PM	#22 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	It isn't so much specific comments here or anywhere. As far as all that goes, not to many are so brash as to say anything that could be directly equated as treason. But that's not to say the mental, the rational, the sentiments do not equate as such. People everywhere hate Bush so much they want us to fail in Iraq, they would be vindicated by it. I hate the cut and run mentality, I hate people politicking with the lives of soldiers, making demands that serve no realistic goal except to be partisan. It then pisses me off when said demands would only further impede war efforts, demoralize the troops further, and most importantly play directly into the enemies hands. For me it doesn't matter anymore that you don't like Bush, that you don't agree with the Iraqi invasion or our continued presence there. People need to realize, that there words and actions have become irrelevant to any means of achieving their goals, doesn't mean there might not be merit to them or that they shouldn't have the right to say them; it's like this things in life are the way they are in cases, sometimes it's all good sometimes it sucks, but there comes a point when you have to pony up and realize that you cannot change the way things are, and it would then become prudent to realize that maybe just maybe your words are doing more harm then good. Does that make any sense? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-18-2006, 06:25 PM	#23 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Mojo, I greatly appreciate the sincerity of your response. Allow me some time to give it the consideration it deserves.

01-18-2006, 10:03 PM	#26 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Osama pertains a lot to Iraq seeing as to there is a significant Al Qaeda base coupled with the insurgency, thus in the context of this conversation, Osama has everything to do with Iraq. If you read the above section of the quote you selectively quoted, you would read how I wrote that I know people on the defeatist/Anti Bush crowd I am talking about don't straight up say anything overtly treasonous, because they are politicking and want to come off like they completely support the troops when in fact they don't. It's the mentality and your ideal "ends" that are the primary problem. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-18-2006, 11:32 PM	#35 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	of course i'm a republican. but that's not even the point... i'm a conservative. being a republican is incidental. i could'nt care less about the party apart from how it serves as a vehicle for advancing my ideas/principles. i'm increasingly disappointed with the GOPs lack of fiscal restraint, i think i'll switch to the Libertarian party soon. and you must recognize that the republican party has MILLIONS of members. there are at least representatives of every race, social background, sexual orientation, income strata etc. etc. if you paid attention to how the GOP base turned on the President when he nominated Harriet Miers for the vacant Supreme Court seat, it's quite obvious that republican thought is far from monolithic. to say that someone always sounds like a "republican" is meaningless. as TFP's own garrulous and grandilloquent roachboy might say, such a worldview lacks nuance. you must not employ such presumptive hubris in your closed up Gore-world. what function this category of memes serve in the liberal mind, i do not know. painting people in broad brush strokes is xenophobic, bordering on the most vile racist roots of the rising neo-fascism. just joking. very plainly, i don't care about whether a person is a democrat or republican... especially as it relates to the role of military service in their politics. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill Last edited by irateplatypus; 01-18-2006 at 11:38 PM..

01-19-2006, 07:13 AM	#40 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Dissenting from a war one believes is unjust is the most patriotic thing a person can do. The people who fought to bring our troups home from VN and now from Iraq are heros, more so than some of our troups. In the words of Albus Dumbledoor "It takes a great deal of curage to stand up to one's enemies but it takes a great deal more to stand up to one's friends". It is in the constitution that if we question our government's actions we are to stand up to them and let them know it. And if they don't listen to what the people are saying then it is our duty to make them change. Calling people who stand up for what they believe right cowards and treasonist is the weakest argument that I ever had and is nothing more than hate speach and rhetoric. It has no merit and i'd appreciate it if you'd stop making me out to be a terrorist who hates america.