FA+
Shop
786
Views
Views
32
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / All
Species Vulpine (Other)
Size 512 x 544
File Size 53.6 kB
Report this content
★
More from rabbi-tom
Listed in Folders
Eight ball in the corner pocket
What pisses me off in living in Madison Wisconsin is the HUGE number of hard core far left politically leaning that live here.
Kim Il Jung would be proud! Stalin and Mao would feel at home here.
Hugo Chavez would be treated as a conquering hero.
Yesterday I witnessed this on two bumper stickers on the back of a Blue Toyota Prius , the driver was a stereotype of a hippy, wearing a Che shirt.
He had the nerve to honk his horn in anger and flip me off at me over my "God Bless our Troops" sticker, which he quickly sped ahead of me, only to hit the brakes hard (Clearly so I could read his stickers) forcing me to lock mine up.
Yeah, I was seriously pissed off over what he had on his car, beyond pissed.
So I drew this up, since killing people is illegal unfortunately.
My God, I drew myself all chibi.
Kim Il Jung would be proud! Stalin and Mao would feel at home here.
Hugo Chavez would be treated as a conquering hero.
Yesterday I witnessed this on two bumper stickers on the back of a Blue Toyota Prius , the driver was a stereotype of a hippy, wearing a Che shirt.
He had the nerve to honk his horn in anger and flip me off at me over my "God Bless our Troops" sticker, which he quickly sped ahead of me, only to hit the brakes hard (Clearly so I could read his stickers) forcing me to lock mine up.
Yeah, I was seriously pissed off over what he had on his car, beyond pissed.
So I drew this up, since killing people is illegal unfortunately.
My God, I drew myself all chibi.
Category All / All
Species Vulpine (Other)
Size 512 x 544px
File Size 53.6 kB
How do you explain to people when their ideas are stupid? Sadly, you can't, because as soon as you challenge their worldview they bring up shields and start acting like YOU are the stupid one.
And sadly this is not simply limited to people on the Left or Right. There are stupid people everywhere, belligerently holding on to the poorly-researched, hastily thought out ideas that they think would magically fix everything overnight.
And sadly this is not simply limited to people on the Left or Right. There are stupid people everywhere, belligerently holding on to the poorly-researched, hastily thought out ideas that they think would magically fix everything overnight.
yeah... i've seen more useless quibbling in political "discussions" (which translated actually means self-righteous soapboxing) than i like.
hey, how bout they, oh, i dunno, find out how the REAL WORLD works before they try and tell the rest of us how we should run things. fucking self-centered megalomaniacs.
hey, how bout they, oh, i dunno, find out how the REAL WORLD works before they try and tell the rest of us how we should run things. fucking self-centered megalomaniacs.
I have a feeling I'm going to regret saying this, but really the people on the ultra-far left who think that dead soldiers are good because they support (I guess) a corrupt government and an unfair war are no more numerous and no better a representation of liberalism as a whole than the people on the extreme far right who cheer for dead soldiers because we don't legislate mandatory church attendance and throw rocks at gay people anymore.
There's a word for people on the far left like the one Rabbi-Tom is shooting in effigy and it's the same one for people on the far right like I described above: idiots.
There's a word for people on the far left like the one Rabbi-Tom is shooting in effigy and it's the same one for people on the far right like I described above: idiots.
Nothing to regret, man. I agree with ya. I think anyone who is against our soldiers is a f**king idiot, much less those who desecrate their memory by disrupting their funerals or causing unnecessary "road rage".
It all comes down to what we lack today as a society: civility. For the life of me I cannot see why we can't be civil to one another, despite having different viewpoints/beliefs/backgrounds.
It all comes down to what we lack today as a society: civility. For the life of me I cannot see why we can't be civil to one another, despite having different viewpoints/beliefs/backgrounds.
I think alot of it has to do with the seemingly growing sentiment in all areas of discourse and debate that anyone who disagrees with you is not only Wrong, even on purely subjective matters, but is actively plotting the downfall of everything good related to the topic at hand. This needless vilification is particularly unctuous in politics, because politics is Serious Buisness (TM). In politics, the Villians (Be they on the right or left) are plotting the very DOWNFALL OF AMERICA!, complete with smokey back-room meetings and sinister mustache twirling.
Fruitful debate simply can't happen without an assumption of good faith... or at least not overtly questioning the motives of your opponent. Unfortunately it works both ways--and the person who sinks the lowest, fast, has the upper hand. I'm always surprised how ridiculous politics can get, but I really shouldn't be. I should be surprised that it manages to function at all.
Ohh yeah, like that religious nut and his family cult of crazies known as the Westboro Baptist Church that like to picket the funerals of soldiers.
Then there's the other religious group of nuts calling themselves Hutaree that was actually attacking government buildings and were planning to kill a cop so they could attack the funeral.
People like that are sick.
Then there's the other religious group of nuts calling themselves Hutaree that was actually attacking government buildings and were planning to kill a cop so they could attack the funeral.
People like that are sick.
personally i would us a flame throw on a person like that bullet to quick . then roost mashmellow on him . had a unle that was a VIET-NAM MARINE ! those hippie bastard piss me off my war will not end with them to the last one dies and all there ideal and bullshit is discredit !!!!
as a lover and owner of a magnum, i feel i should say this kicks ass and just makes me grin with joy seeing you kill these fuckers. but i would suggect trying to group them together and use this on them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_C.....lear_device%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_C.....lear_device%29
http://www.amazon.com/Cold-Steel-Br...../dp/B002D4IJ0Y
Really, it's much more economical. If you tried to use bullets for the job you'd eventually go broke. Unbreakable bat is the way to go.
Also, this makes me wonder if a supermagnum revolver (.500 S&W, etc) can crack an engine block, leave 'em stranded with a broken engine. I can't help but think of the song "Bad Habit" by The Offspring. I'd imagine that's about how you felt.
Really, it's much more economical. If you tried to use bullets for the job you'd eventually go broke. Unbreakable bat is the way to go.
Also, this makes me wonder if a supermagnum revolver (.500 S&W, etc) can crack an engine block, leave 'em stranded with a broken engine. I can't help but think of the song "Bad Habit" by The Offspring. I'd imagine that's about how you felt.
huh. extremists are never good. righties and lefties have their points, but unfortunately neither fascism/nationalism nor communism is the right way per se. it takes a lot of bureaucracy and police to keep people in check, as we all have witnessed.
I can understand why they would think that way, but the problem is not the troops trying to solve problems there, it's the politicians who botch everything up.
after germany's troops have destroyed those two gas trucks some Taliban had stolen a year ago, killing 142 people (a lot of them civilians) we have niow a huge scandal, they even try to charge the officers-in-charge for war crime. thing is, politicians forgot to tell the populace that there might be the need to attack to keep soldiers and civilians safe. everybody thought it's just standing there looking important, them Taliban will tuck their tails and run.
...not.
that sticker really read, "I support Al-Qaida"? huh. I would have wanted to shoot that one, too. or better, wrap some dynamite around him and send him off to his 'friends'. openly supporting a terrorist organisation is highly illegal in germany, and would have gotten him a thorough questioning.
and then he wore a Che t-shirt? maybe he got somethign wrong while listening to history class... communism aside, Che seemed to have had a goal. Al_Quaida only wants to bomb your pants...
I can understand why they would think that way, but the problem is not the troops trying to solve problems there, it's the politicians who botch everything up.
after germany's troops have destroyed those two gas trucks some Taliban had stolen a year ago, killing 142 people (a lot of them civilians) we have niow a huge scandal, they even try to charge the officers-in-charge for war crime. thing is, politicians forgot to tell the populace that there might be the need to attack to keep soldiers and civilians safe. everybody thought it's just standing there looking important, them Taliban will tuck their tails and run.
...not.
that sticker really read, "I support Al-Qaida"? huh. I would have wanted to shoot that one, too. or better, wrap some dynamite around him and send him off to his 'friends'. openly supporting a terrorist organisation is highly illegal in germany, and would have gotten him a thorough questioning.
and then he wore a Che t-shirt? maybe he got somethign wrong while listening to history class... communism aside, Che seemed to have had a goal. Al_Quaida only wants to bomb your pants...
A dear friend of mine has a piece of shrapnel in his back from an IED that hit his humvee, he lived, others riding with him did not.
What is more disturbing is someone who means the world to me just enlisted and will be deployed and may possibly die.
I hate the foreign wars and I curse the politicians who dreamed them up for callous and bitter concepts like "supremacy," and "security." Terrorists would not have targeted the US if the US had not been trying to prop up dictators like Saddam Husein and others to keep the Russians from getting control of a lot of Middle Eastern oil and to keep OPEC in check.
Most all of the troops (My friend with the shrapnel knew the truth but was a stoic, one of the last, damn him) trully believe that America would be in danger without their sacrifice, and I will never curse them or otherwise insult them.
Damn Bush, Cheney, Powel, Obamah, Clinton, Eisenhower, and all the rest who have feed American's BS and spent American blood on things that are not worth the price: and damn all of them who perpetuate the wars and all those who curse and insult honest hearted people just trying to protect us all.
Bring back the Monroe doctrine.
What is more disturbing is someone who means the world to me just enlisted and will be deployed and may possibly die.
I hate the foreign wars and I curse the politicians who dreamed them up for callous and bitter concepts like "supremacy," and "security." Terrorists would not have targeted the US if the US had not been trying to prop up dictators like Saddam Husein and others to keep the Russians from getting control of a lot of Middle Eastern oil and to keep OPEC in check.
Most all of the troops (My friend with the shrapnel knew the truth but was a stoic, one of the last, damn him) trully believe that America would be in danger without their sacrifice, and I will never curse them or otherwise insult them.
Damn Bush, Cheney, Powel, Obamah, Clinton, Eisenhower, and all the rest who have feed American's BS and spent American blood on things that are not worth the price: and damn all of them who perpetuate the wars and all those who curse and insult honest hearted people just trying to protect us all.
Bring back the Monroe doctrine.
Terrorists would not have targeted the US if the US had not been trying to prop up dictators like Saddam Husein and others to keep the Russians from getting control of a lot of Middle Eastern oil and to keep OPEC in check.
Completely incorrect. Saddam Hussein got FAR more support from the USSR, France, and China than he ever did from us. Yes, we do share some of the blame for turning a blind eye to his genocidal campaigns against Shiite Muslims, Kurds, and Marsh Arabs - personally I think we should've invaded right then in the 80s and nipped all of this in the bud - but far more blood is on the hands of the aforementioned countries than us. A more accurate criticism would be us supporting Britain's toppling of Iran's original democratic government and installing the Shah in order to open up the oil flow from that country... Which later on led to the population revolting against the unpopular Shah and making way for the theocratic dystopia it is today.
But even then your claim that we were attacked because of propping up dictatorships holds little truth. Al Qaeda's hostility towards the US began around the time of the Gulf War, when Bin Laden was outraged by the idea of western troops on sacred Muslim land (Saudi Arabia). Before then he had shown little intent in attacking the US, as the USSR was his primary enemy. This, coupled with our support for Israel's right to exist, earned us a spot in his crosshairs. If our support for oppressive dictators had any involvement at all with the events leading up to terrorist attacks on the US in recent years, it's miniscule in comparison to the fact that our primary enemies, Al Qaeda, attacked us not out of reaction for any supposed war crimes or support for dictatorships, but because of us stationing troops in the Middle East, the Balkans, and supporting Israel's right to exist.
and all the rest who have feed American's BS and spent American blood on things that are not worth the price
Are you for real? Do you seriously mean to say you'd prefer that we hadn't intervened in the Korean War and left that entire peninsula to be ruled today under Kim Jong Il? Do you seriously think we should've let Saddam Hussein annex Kuwait? Do you also think it wasn't "worth the price" to stop genocide in the former Yugoslavia, to liberate Iraq from Hussein's grip? I bet you got your wish in Rwanda though, since that was a case where the US decided it wasn't "worth the price" to intervene... And look what happened because we didn't.
Completely incorrect. Saddam Hussein got FAR more support from the USSR, France, and China than he ever did from us. Yes, we do share some of the blame for turning a blind eye to his genocidal campaigns against Shiite Muslims, Kurds, and Marsh Arabs - personally I think we should've invaded right then in the 80s and nipped all of this in the bud - but far more blood is on the hands of the aforementioned countries than us. A more accurate criticism would be us supporting Britain's toppling of Iran's original democratic government and installing the Shah in order to open up the oil flow from that country... Which later on led to the population revolting against the unpopular Shah and making way for the theocratic dystopia it is today.
But even then your claim that we were attacked because of propping up dictatorships holds little truth. Al Qaeda's hostility towards the US began around the time of the Gulf War, when Bin Laden was outraged by the idea of western troops on sacred Muslim land (Saudi Arabia). Before then he had shown little intent in attacking the US, as the USSR was his primary enemy. This, coupled with our support for Israel's right to exist, earned us a spot in his crosshairs. If our support for oppressive dictators had any involvement at all with the events leading up to terrorist attacks on the US in recent years, it's miniscule in comparison to the fact that our primary enemies, Al Qaeda, attacked us not out of reaction for any supposed war crimes or support for dictatorships, but because of us stationing troops in the Middle East, the Balkans, and supporting Israel's right to exist.
and all the rest who have feed American's BS and spent American blood on things that are not worth the price
Are you for real? Do you seriously mean to say you'd prefer that we hadn't intervened in the Korean War and left that entire peninsula to be ruled today under Kim Jong Il? Do you seriously think we should've let Saddam Hussein annex Kuwait? Do you also think it wasn't "worth the price" to stop genocide in the former Yugoslavia, to liberate Iraq from Hussein's grip? I bet you got your wish in Rwanda though, since that was a case where the US decided it wasn't "worth the price" to intervene... And look what happened because we didn't.
If the US didn't have troops in the middle east it would never have gotten into the cross hairs of extremest groups: we are talking 30's (Britain, but they were and are our alley), 40's, and 50's. US involvement has continued to this day, and in my opinion is only making maters worse, not better.
But what right does the US have to dictate policy to others, to intervene in other countries internal matters? No country has the right to send troops anywhere, except for it's own preservation. I had a friend who was a drill Sargent and US Army ranger. I asked him how he handled a sniper: he responded "use an RPG and bring the building down." Collateral damage is part of various terrorists recruitment policies. As is the image of America being an oppressive imperial power. No mater the reality, conquering and occupying other countries who did not openly attack (and harboring 3rd parties who did does not count) makes the US look like an oppressive imperial power.
As for the Afghanistan harboring terrorists: how does that justify US occupation of Afghanistan instead of simply crossing the boarder once and killing all of Al Qaeda's leadership? Had that been the goal of the Afghanistan war Al Qaeda might be gone and troops would not be there are targets. Instead the goal was to take control of the country, keep control, then sweep for Al Qaeda.
The US has no responsibility or right to intervene in any matter not directly relating to it's citizens being in immediate danger of bodily harm; and doing so is putting my friends in grave jeopardy.
The rest of the world can tend to itself and burn: I want all the troops home, safe and unscathed.
But what right does the US have to dictate policy to others, to intervene in other countries internal matters? No country has the right to send troops anywhere, except for it's own preservation. I had a friend who was a drill Sargent and US Army ranger. I asked him how he handled a sniper: he responded "use an RPG and bring the building down." Collateral damage is part of various terrorists recruitment policies. As is the image of America being an oppressive imperial power. No mater the reality, conquering and occupying other countries who did not openly attack (and harboring 3rd parties who did does not count) makes the US look like an oppressive imperial power.
As for the Afghanistan harboring terrorists: how does that justify US occupation of Afghanistan instead of simply crossing the boarder once and killing all of Al Qaeda's leadership? Had that been the goal of the Afghanistan war Al Qaeda might be gone and troops would not be there are targets. Instead the goal was to take control of the country, keep control, then sweep for Al Qaeda.
The US has no responsibility or right to intervene in any matter not directly relating to it's citizens being in immediate danger of bodily harm; and doing so is putting my friends in grave jeopardy.
The rest of the world can tend to itself and burn: I want all the troops home, safe and unscathed.
1) The US has been involved in the Middle East since the 18th century. It wasn't until after the creation of the state of Israel that we became so viciously targeted. The fact that there's a Jewish state the size of Jersey in the middle of the desert really sticks in the craw of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and so on.
2) What right does the US have to dictate policy to others? You're asking the wrong person. I firmly believe in the US being a global empire and world police. The UN clearly doesn't have the spine needed to stop genocide from happening, so the US and NATO are the next best thing.
3) Because even if we somehow managed to kill all of Al Qaeda in one blow (which is just not possible with such an underground group), Afghanistan would still have been left wide open as a safe haven for other terrorists to pick up the flag from Al Qaeda's corpse and continue on. The purpose of us occupying Afghanistan is to help secure the government as a humane state that can join the rest of the world, and to deny terrorists the ability to take root in Afghanistan again.
And finally:
The US has no responsibility or right to intervene in any matter not directly relating to it's citizens being in immediate danger of bodily harm; and doing so is putting my friends in grave jeopardy.
The rest of the world can tend to itself and burn: I want all the troops home, safe and unscathed.
It must be wonderful inside your head then, able to so easily care about nothing but yourself and what's within your own borders. You're probably the kind of person who would've changed the channel to Jeopardy whenever news stories came on about the Rwandan Genocide, or when NATO troops found piles of corpses of women and girls who'd been raped and then shot in the Yugoslavian woods. Apathy must be bliss.
2) What right does the US have to dictate policy to others? You're asking the wrong person. I firmly believe in the US being a global empire and world police. The UN clearly doesn't have the spine needed to stop genocide from happening, so the US and NATO are the next best thing.
3) Because even if we somehow managed to kill all of Al Qaeda in one blow (which is just not possible with such an underground group), Afghanistan would still have been left wide open as a safe haven for other terrorists to pick up the flag from Al Qaeda's corpse and continue on. The purpose of us occupying Afghanistan is to help secure the government as a humane state that can join the rest of the world, and to deny terrorists the ability to take root in Afghanistan again.
And finally:
The US has no responsibility or right to intervene in any matter not directly relating to it's citizens being in immediate danger of bodily harm; and doing so is putting my friends in grave jeopardy.
The rest of the world can tend to itself and burn: I want all the troops home, safe and unscathed.
It must be wonderful inside your head then, able to so easily care about nothing but yourself and what's within your own borders. You're probably the kind of person who would've changed the channel to Jeopardy whenever news stories came on about the Rwandan Genocide, or when NATO troops found piles of corpses of women and girls who'd been raped and then shot in the Yugoslavian woods. Apathy must be bliss.
1.) I know my history, and you are right to point out the long involvement of the United States in the Middle East. Its first involvement was to deal with piracy and it has been getting more embroiled since.
2.) You believe that the US should be a world police force; but I asked if it has the RIGHT. Good/just, right/legal: those are different things, though they are not mutually exclusive they can be quite different. Is is just and legal for the US to act as world police? You think your neighbor is abusing his children; instead of going to child services or the police you bust down his door and seriously hurt him. What gave you the right? And what if you are wrong?
And what's more: who checks the US? Where is the checks and balances like in our legal system? Look up Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, Eisenhower, and Guatemala: there was a claim of a oppressive communist regime that was removed; and it was amorally, unjustly, and illegally removed with the aid of the US, worsening conditions for the people who lived there.
Without checks and balances, any organization that polices will eventually become corrupt and oppressive: having the US be an Empire will eventually lead to an end of everything it stands for: and the oppression it forces in other countries will create new terrorists.
As per your accusation that I care nothing for others (and I did say let the world burn); how would you like it if Canada invaded the US because it perceived our health care to be corrupt and abusive to white lower middle class people? You'd grab your gun immediately, cursing "what right do they have!"
The US should be what it was made from its inception: a safe haven for the oppressed. Grabbing the people being murdered and bringing them here to have crap jobs, as many immigrants here did, was what America was founded on. You CANNOT make people get along, but you can have work and take those who do away from their attackers.
3.) I never said kill Al Qaeda; but it's leadership. They might have splinted and stared to tear itself apart: or at the very least be left with little leadership. And Afghanistan would not have been a safe haven for terrorists: the US would have proved that they can go in and destroy any group there that is wishes.
You also forget the chaos that happens when you remove a regime. The US was able to track the Al Qaeda leadership to Afghanistan and the general geographic locations. In the chaos the US was unable to track their movements, thus enabling them to escape. I submit the postulate that removing a government, even a corrupt one, creates such chaos that extremist groups and criminal organizations can use as a smoke screen so they can operate more easily and freely with less chance of being tracked. If true, Afghanistan become MORE of a safe haven for terrorist BECAUSE of the invasion then if it had been left alone.
And Al Qaeda used the occupation of Afghanistan for recruitment propaganda: they ended up stronger. They way Al Qaeda is set up it doesn't need a country to shelter it; conquering Afghanistan did little if anything to retard Al Qaeda; and most certainly did eliminate the perceived justifications that most terrorist groups use for their actions against the US.
2.) You believe that the US should be a world police force; but I asked if it has the RIGHT. Good/just, right/legal: those are different things, though they are not mutually exclusive they can be quite different. Is is just and legal for the US to act as world police? You think your neighbor is abusing his children; instead of going to child services or the police you bust down his door and seriously hurt him. What gave you the right? And what if you are wrong?
And what's more: who checks the US? Where is the checks and balances like in our legal system? Look up Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, Eisenhower, and Guatemala: there was a claim of a oppressive communist regime that was removed; and it was amorally, unjustly, and illegally removed with the aid of the US, worsening conditions for the people who lived there.
Without checks and balances, any organization that polices will eventually become corrupt and oppressive: having the US be an Empire will eventually lead to an end of everything it stands for: and the oppression it forces in other countries will create new terrorists.
As per your accusation that I care nothing for others (and I did say let the world burn); how would you like it if Canada invaded the US because it perceived our health care to be corrupt and abusive to white lower middle class people? You'd grab your gun immediately, cursing "what right do they have!"
The US should be what it was made from its inception: a safe haven for the oppressed. Grabbing the people being murdered and bringing them here to have crap jobs, as many immigrants here did, was what America was founded on. You CANNOT make people get along, but you can have work and take those who do away from their attackers.
3.) I never said kill Al Qaeda; but it's leadership. They might have splinted and stared to tear itself apart: or at the very least be left with little leadership. And Afghanistan would not have been a safe haven for terrorists: the US would have proved that they can go in and destroy any group there that is wishes.
You also forget the chaos that happens when you remove a regime. The US was able to track the Al Qaeda leadership to Afghanistan and the general geographic locations. In the chaos the US was unable to track their movements, thus enabling them to escape. I submit the postulate that removing a government, even a corrupt one, creates such chaos that extremist groups and criminal organizations can use as a smoke screen so they can operate more easily and freely with less chance of being tracked. If true, Afghanistan become MORE of a safe haven for terrorist BECAUSE of the invasion then if it had been left alone.
And Al Qaeda used the occupation of Afghanistan for recruitment propaganda: they ended up stronger. They way Al Qaeda is set up it doesn't need a country to shelter it; conquering Afghanistan did little if anything to retard Al Qaeda; and most certainly did eliminate the perceived justifications that most terrorist groups use for their actions against the US.
*EDITS* (I hate when I make typos, my sincerest apologies.)
The US should be what it was made from its inception: a safe haven for the oppressed. Grabbing the people being murdered and bringing them here to have crap jobs, as many immigrants here did, was what America was founded on. You CANNOT make people get along, but you can have work and take those who do *want peaceful coexistence* away from their attackers.
3.) I never said kill *all of* Al Qaeda; but it's leadership. They might have splinted and stared to tear itself apart: or at the very least be left with little leadership. And Afghanistan would not have been a safe haven for terrorists: the US would have proved that they can go in and destroy any group there that is wishes.
[...]
And Al Qaeda used the occupation of Afghanistan for recruitment propaganda: they ended up stronger. *The* way Al Qaeda is set up it doesn't need a country to shelter it; conquering Afghanistan did little if anything to retard Al Qaeda; and most certainly did *not* eliminate the perceived justifications that most terrorist groups use for their actions against the US.
The US should be what it was made from its inception: a safe haven for the oppressed. Grabbing the people being murdered and bringing them here to have crap jobs, as many immigrants here did, was what America was founded on. You CANNOT make people get along, but you can have work and take those who do *want peaceful coexistence* away from their attackers.
3.) I never said kill *all of* Al Qaeda; but it's leadership. They might have splinted and stared to tear itself apart: or at the very least be left with little leadership. And Afghanistan would not have been a safe haven for terrorists: the US would have proved that they can go in and destroy any group there that is wishes.
[...]
And Al Qaeda used the occupation of Afghanistan for recruitment propaganda: they ended up stronger. *The* way Al Qaeda is set up it doesn't need a country to shelter it; conquering Afghanistan did little if anything to retard Al Qaeda; and most certainly did *not* eliminate the perceived justifications that most terrorist groups use for their actions against the US.
I also failed to mention that legal rights and responsibilities are needed to set up a system of checks and balances. The US has no right to intervene (something being morally good is not the same as it being right and just, or having the right to do it). Without that right there can be no way to set up limitations on actions and to make a system of checks and balances.
1) I never said that the US has a right to be the world police. I think at this point we don't have a right to not be the world police. Or do you seriously think we should let the UN handle that? That sure worked wonders in Rwanda, Sudan and the Balkans didn't it?
2) I know about the conspiracy to topple Guatemala's democratic government, as well as the US's support for Britain's ruination of Iran's democracy which led to the Shah taking hold. You're sorely mistaking me for thinking the US is like the global Jesus and a perfect model to be emulated everywhere. I don't. We've done horrible things, but guess what? It doesn't stop me from knowing when we have to do good.
And please, don't even dare compare the Canada invading US over our messed up healthcare system to us attacking Serbia for committing genocide.
3) Again, tell me how could we just send in some commandos to precisely kill off Al Qaeda's leadership? You're again speaking from a completely unrealistic view of military tactics and intelligence. Al Qaeda isn't stupid, they're not all clustered together in some bunker we can just pull a Dirty Dozen on.
4) Afghanistan's future is uncertain right now, so you might end up being right in the future about it becoming a safe haven for terrorists. But let's take Iraq as another relevant example. Though violence still occurs there, the nation itself no longer sponsors terrorism abroad as Saddam Hussein did (remember that he was a MAJOR source of funding for Palestinian terrorists). The country is now able to stand on its own and deal with its own problems, and since the Troop Surge in 2006 and the Awakening Councils, the terrorists in that country have been constantly on the run where they weren't already eliminated.
Also, Al Qaeda does in fact need a country to shelter it. Our invasion of Afghanistan was to deny them that country as a base of operation. Should any other country become a base of operation for them and the powers in charge of it are unable or unwilling to combat them, then I fully support us going in and doing it ourselves, and I would be glad to be a part of that.
2) I know about the conspiracy to topple Guatemala's democratic government, as well as the US's support for Britain's ruination of Iran's democracy which led to the Shah taking hold. You're sorely mistaking me for thinking the US is like the global Jesus and a perfect model to be emulated everywhere. I don't. We've done horrible things, but guess what? It doesn't stop me from knowing when we have to do good.
And please, don't even dare compare the Canada invading US over our messed up healthcare system to us attacking Serbia for committing genocide.
3) Again, tell me how could we just send in some commandos to precisely kill off Al Qaeda's leadership? You're again speaking from a completely unrealistic view of military tactics and intelligence. Al Qaeda isn't stupid, they're not all clustered together in some bunker we can just pull a Dirty Dozen on.
4) Afghanistan's future is uncertain right now, so you might end up being right in the future about it becoming a safe haven for terrorists. But let's take Iraq as another relevant example. Though violence still occurs there, the nation itself no longer sponsors terrorism abroad as Saddam Hussein did (remember that he was a MAJOR source of funding for Palestinian terrorists). The country is now able to stand on its own and deal with its own problems, and since the Troop Surge in 2006 and the Awakening Councils, the terrorists in that country have been constantly on the run where they weren't already eliminated.
Also, Al Qaeda does in fact need a country to shelter it. Our invasion of Afghanistan was to deny them that country as a base of operation. Should any other country become a base of operation for them and the powers in charge of it are unable or unwilling to combat them, then I fully support us going in and doing it ourselves, and I would be glad to be a part of that.
1.) Not having a right to not is not the same as having a right to. And just because the UN sucks (it has some rights to be a police force in member nations because member nations surrender that right to the UN: not to the US) does not give the US the right to dictate to other countries and groups outside it's boarders.
2.) Those terrible conspiracies were all a result of the US trying to police. My argument is that the US trying to act as a police force will cause it to do more harm then good.
I was trying to go for shock value, and I think I failed with the comments about Canada invading the US.
3.) Your argument about Al Qaeda's leadership not being clumpt in one spot ignores one huge fact: the US is the single largest military power in the world with thousands of people in special forces units. There would have been more then enough special forces units available for the task if they were on the offensive instead of being dispersed in a defensive war as they are now; or hunting for targets. Bush claimed to have know the location of Al Qaeda's leadership: if true then my proposal would have been possible.
4.) Al Qaeda worked in side the US for many of it's operations: and it also did so in Spain and many other countries. Having a safe heaven were the top leadership can safely congregate is not necessary for Al Qaeda as it works in a cell structure. So long as their is a basic common goal, each cell can recruit, fund itself, sponsor new cells, plan, organize, and execute operations all independently.
To kill Al Qaeda you need to kill it's philosophical justification so it cannot recruit enough members to keep functioning: and a major part of it's justification is US invading and dictating to other countries.
2.) Those terrible conspiracies were all a result of the US trying to police. My argument is that the US trying to act as a police force will cause it to do more harm then good.
I was trying to go for shock value, and I think I failed with the comments about Canada invading the US.
3.) Your argument about Al Qaeda's leadership not being clumpt in one spot ignores one huge fact: the US is the single largest military power in the world with thousands of people in special forces units. There would have been more then enough special forces units available for the task if they were on the offensive instead of being dispersed in a defensive war as they are now; or hunting for targets. Bush claimed to have know the location of Al Qaeda's leadership: if true then my proposal would have been possible.
4.) Al Qaeda worked in side the US for many of it's operations: and it also did so in Spain and many other countries. Having a safe heaven were the top leadership can safely congregate is not necessary for Al Qaeda as it works in a cell structure. So long as their is a basic common goal, each cell can recruit, fund itself, sponsor new cells, plan, organize, and execute operations all independently.
To kill Al Qaeda you need to kill it's philosophical justification so it cannot recruit enough members to keep functioning: and a major part of it's justification is US invading and dictating to other countries.
1) So when the UN fails or declines to stop massive-scale crimes against humanity from taking place, the US, being one of the world's superpowers and the capability to stop such atrocities, is to do nothing? If that's what's right, then I'm glad to call myself dead wrong. I'm not saying I want the US to just pull on its cowboy hat and sherriff's badge and go busting jaws left and right, since ideally, having a multinational campaign is the way to handle things, but in a lot of cases it's just not possible.
2) It depends on who's in charge of the police actions. Some US police actions were indeed terrifyingly corrupt or resulted in more harm than good, whereas others were moral necessity. Again, the Yugoslavian genocides, which had it not been for a US-led NATO intervention to smash Serbian forces, would've most likely led to Khmer Rouge-scale slaughter.
3) You still don't get it. This isn't something you could've solved by merely throwing a bunch of SEALs or Rangers or Force Recon at them and thinking they could just Rambo the place up. Knowing the location of enemy leadership does not equate being able to get to them.
4) The difference between the US and Spain is that Al Qaeda wasn't operating openly. In Afghanistan they were, with the support of the government of the time. Removing the Taliban from rulership also removed Al Qaeda the ability to operate so openly and cut off many of its funding sources.
5) That I agree with, partially. However, Al Qaeda, like most terrorist groups, doesn't even really need US invasions as a recruiting point - they just need a large supply of poor, easily-swayed or intimidated Muslim youths they can lie, bait, or extort into fighting for them. Remember they attacked us before we invaded anybody, because we had troops peacefully stationed in Arab nations (at the invitation of these nations, mind you) and because we supported Israel's right to exist. They'd continue rallying against us with or without us having invaded Iraq or Afghanistan. The reason Afghanistan was such a hellhole the past couple decades was partially due to us not taking a large enough role in the reconstruction of that country and its educational infrastructure after we helped kick the Soviets out in the 1980s. Had we continued to rebuild the country, perhaps history may've taken a different, and better path, but in anycase, we're learning from those past mistakes now. Of course, you'll almost never hear on the news about all the hospitals we set up and schools we're building. It's just not as interesting or sensational as hearing about more troop deaths.
2) It depends on who's in charge of the police actions. Some US police actions were indeed terrifyingly corrupt or resulted in more harm than good, whereas others were moral necessity. Again, the Yugoslavian genocides, which had it not been for a US-led NATO intervention to smash Serbian forces, would've most likely led to Khmer Rouge-scale slaughter.
3) You still don't get it. This isn't something you could've solved by merely throwing a bunch of SEALs or Rangers or Force Recon at them and thinking they could just Rambo the place up. Knowing the location of enemy leadership does not equate being able to get to them.
4) The difference between the US and Spain is that Al Qaeda wasn't operating openly. In Afghanistan they were, with the support of the government of the time. Removing the Taliban from rulership also removed Al Qaeda the ability to operate so openly and cut off many of its funding sources.
5) That I agree with, partially. However, Al Qaeda, like most terrorist groups, doesn't even really need US invasions as a recruiting point - they just need a large supply of poor, easily-swayed or intimidated Muslim youths they can lie, bait, or extort into fighting for them. Remember they attacked us before we invaded anybody, because we had troops peacefully stationed in Arab nations (at the invitation of these nations, mind you) and because we supported Israel's right to exist. They'd continue rallying against us with or without us having invaded Iraq or Afghanistan. The reason Afghanistan was such a hellhole the past couple decades was partially due to us not taking a large enough role in the reconstruction of that country and its educational infrastructure after we helped kick the Soviets out in the 1980s. Had we continued to rebuild the country, perhaps history may've taken a different, and better path, but in anycase, we're learning from those past mistakes now. Of course, you'll almost never hear on the news about all the hospitals we set up and schools we're building. It's just not as interesting or sensational as hearing about more troop deaths.
1 and 2.) Are you saying it is morally acceptable for the United States to commit horribly corrupt atrocities? The US acting as an international police force without checks and balances will and has resulted in that. Hippocrates had it right "First DO NO HARM," then worry about everything else.
3.) Knowing the locations allowed the US to send in special forces for two reasons: impede the retreat of Al Qaeda's forces and to track them as they move. I never said "Rambo" or implied such a scenario. My arm chair military proposal was to copy Normandy: paratroopers being used to slow the enemies' response while the main forces landed and rushed to meet up. Until years pass and all the "intelligence" (if there was anything remotely credible to begin with) there is no way to really guess, but it seems likely, if what was said was really the truth.
4.) The Afghanistan invasion did not impede Al Qaeda enough to justify the cost: even though they lost some open funding channels, the invasion has been used by them as a propaganda tool and has garnered them far more support then resources it cut off.
5.) Your opinion of Afghanistan's reconstruction is astute, but flawed. The US funded the Taliban against the Soviets; had that not happened no one group might not have been able to consolidate power and the country might have rebuilt differently.
As for the US doing nothing to feed propaganda: the US supported and funded secular dictators like Saddam Husein; as for Israel; that land was promised to be used to form one large independent Muslim nation at the close of World War II; but England felt guilty over it's passivity over the holocaust, so instead of helping to fund resettling Jewish victims back to their original homes, they "Indian" gave the land they had already promised.
Then Israel became it's own worst enemy. They treated much of their Muslim populations just as bad as the Nazis had treated the Jews (sans the extermination camps, as far as we know); something not overlooked by it's Muslim neighbors. Without US support, Israel would not have had the military might to survive, let along commit it's own atrocities.
In all honesty, the US should not have been funding and aiding Israel, especially when that country was making an earnest effort to force it's Muslim population out of the Gaza strip. If Israel's was "innocent" I might be inclided to rethink my standing, but they are not by any stretch of the imagination, and even if they were, what happens in Israel should have little impact on American citizens; so American lives should not be risked.
3.) Knowing the locations allowed the US to send in special forces for two reasons: impede the retreat of Al Qaeda's forces and to track them as they move. I never said "Rambo" or implied such a scenario. My arm chair military proposal was to copy Normandy: paratroopers being used to slow the enemies' response while the main forces landed and rushed to meet up. Until years pass and all the "intelligence" (if there was anything remotely credible to begin with) there is no way to really guess, but it seems likely, if what was said was really the truth.
4.) The Afghanistan invasion did not impede Al Qaeda enough to justify the cost: even though they lost some open funding channels, the invasion has been used by them as a propaganda tool and has garnered them far more support then resources it cut off.
5.) Your opinion of Afghanistan's reconstruction is astute, but flawed. The US funded the Taliban against the Soviets; had that not happened no one group might not have been able to consolidate power and the country might have rebuilt differently.
As for the US doing nothing to feed propaganda: the US supported and funded secular dictators like Saddam Husein; as for Israel; that land was promised to be used to form one large independent Muslim nation at the close of World War II; but England felt guilty over it's passivity over the holocaust, so instead of helping to fund resettling Jewish victims back to their original homes, they "Indian" gave the land they had already promised.
Then Israel became it's own worst enemy. They treated much of their Muslim populations just as bad as the Nazis had treated the Jews (sans the extermination camps, as far as we know); something not overlooked by it's Muslim neighbors. Without US support, Israel would not have had the military might to survive, let along commit it's own atrocities.
In all honesty, the US should not have been funding and aiding Israel, especially when that country was making an earnest effort to force it's Muslim population out of the Gaza strip. If Israel's was "innocent" I might be inclided to rethink my standing, but they are not by any stretch of the imagination, and even if they were, what happens in Israel should have little impact on American citizens; so American lives should not be risked.
umm, yeah, it kinda is. if you wanted to ask a question to Tom directly, ask him directly using the "send note" function. posting a question publically and then berating someone for answering (since it wasn't whom you were intending) is rather childish thing to do.
are you a child? do you want your ba-ba? no? then start acting like a bloody adult.
are you a child? do you want your ba-ba? no? then start acting like a bloody adult.
Do all of your arguments devolve into you slinging around names, or just the special ones? Because I'm seeing what's left of any credibility you might have ever held go right out the damn window while you keep this shit up.
Like I said before. Shut the fuck up and go crawl back in your hole. I'm done with you. I have better things to waste my time on than some immature little punk who can't be bothered to use common sense, and can't be bothered to keep their nose out of someone else's business.
Like I said before. Shut the fuck up and go crawl back in your hole. I'm done with you. I have better things to waste my time on than some immature little punk who can't be bothered to use common sense, and can't be bothered to keep their nose out of someone else's business.
Having an opinion is one thing. But pulling that stop and break crap would have gotten me out of my car and pulling him out of his. You could have just pushed his car, too.
But little dinks like that will think one thing...
The fuckwits that get to me, is the whole Westboro Baptists. If there ever was a whole group that needed a proper beat down, its them.
But little dinks like that will think one thing...
The fuckwits that get to me, is the whole Westboro Baptists. If there ever was a whole group that needed a proper beat down, its them.
I know of only two lefties locally who own guns, and one was a victim of a crime and decided to not be a victim again...go figure.
The other decided to buy a gun while he could last year, thinking Obama and congress were going to go after the second amendment. he hasn't shot it, sits in a box in his basement, probably rusting by now.
The other decided to buy a gun while he could last year, thinking Obama and congress were going to go after the second amendment. he hasn't shot it, sits in a box in his basement, probably rusting by now.
Rabbi, allow me to introduce you to a group of us. http://bluesteeldemocrats.blogspot.com/
Shalom, Mr. Tom.
Shalom, Mr. Tom.
There are other leftists who want the troops home and to stop cursing the soldiers.
Thousands died so the wouldn't have to worry about their families and decedents being unjustly imprisoned without trial by the British or face foreign occupation during the revolution.
Thousands more in 1812 to keep their fellow men from being imprisoned and impressed by a foreign power.
Many thousands on thousands died in from the Union to grant protection under the Constitution to others: and many thousands on thousands died from the Confederacy to ensure political freedom from tyranny from a government they saw as being controlled by big business special interests.
And it goes on.
Every time the United States denies the rights in the Bill or Rights to another; or every time the United States occupies another country or acts as an imperial power it is spitting and pissing on the graves of every American soldier who fought and died for his principles and for justice.
Had the US not tried to conquer and occupy Afghanistan: if they had instead found where the key terrorists were hiding and had gone in with special forces followed by the rest of the armed forces to extract them, then left, the key terrorists would be dead, the US would be safer, and there would be less American Soldiers dying.
Thousands died so the wouldn't have to worry about their families and decedents being unjustly imprisoned without trial by the British or face foreign occupation during the revolution.
Thousands more in 1812 to keep their fellow men from being imprisoned and impressed by a foreign power.
Many thousands on thousands died in from the Union to grant protection under the Constitution to others: and many thousands on thousands died from the Confederacy to ensure political freedom from tyranny from a government they saw as being controlled by big business special interests.
And it goes on.
Every time the United States denies the rights in the Bill or Rights to another; or every time the United States occupies another country or acts as an imperial power it is spitting and pissing on the graves of every American soldier who fought and died for his principles and for justice.
Had the US not tried to conquer and occupy Afghanistan: if they had instead found where the key terrorists were hiding and had gone in with special forces followed by the rest of the armed forces to extract them, then left, the key terrorists would be dead, the US would be safer, and there would be less American Soldiers dying.
There are other leftists who want the troops home
Then fuck them. Myself and every other Marine I work with WANTS to go fight.
Had the US not tried to conquer and occupy Afghanistan: if they had instead found where the key terrorists were hiding and had gone in with special forces followed by the rest of the armed forces to extract them, then left, the key terrorists would be dead, the US would be safer, and there would be less American Soldiers dying.
Armchair General nonsense. Contrary to the popular belief held by people who think they know a damned thing about military tactics because they own a trenchcoat and a few airsoft guns, the real world doesn't work like Metal Gear Solid or Splinter Cell. You can't just halo drop a few super soldiers into a place where they'll be surrounded by 10,000 square miles of hostile territory and seriously expect them to pinpoint the head terrorists, and somehow be extracted? It's been tried before and failed miserably, more than once. You're not even bothering to take into account things like geography.
Then fuck them. Myself and every other Marine I work with WANTS to go fight.
Had the US not tried to conquer and occupy Afghanistan: if they had instead found where the key terrorists were hiding and had gone in with special forces followed by the rest of the armed forces to extract them, then left, the key terrorists would be dead, the US would be safer, and there would be less American Soldiers dying.
Armchair General nonsense. Contrary to the popular belief held by people who think they know a damned thing about military tactics because they own a trenchcoat and a few airsoft guns, the real world doesn't work like Metal Gear Solid or Splinter Cell. You can't just halo drop a few super soldiers into a place where they'll be surrounded by 10,000 square miles of hostile territory and seriously expect them to pinpoint the head terrorists, and somehow be extracted? It's been tried before and failed miserably, more than once. You're not even bothering to take into account things like geography.
One: one my friend is a Marine and now hates the corp. He is a stoic and believes both wars to be wrong. He also admitted to buying into some patriotic propaganda that fed his stoicism. He's still a stoic, but he is far more a cynic now then he ever was.
Two: Worked in Normandy: the US landed hundreds of paratroopers then met them with the rest of the armed forces in a pincer movement. Landing special forces to find or limit the movement of key targets then following with an very large armed force could have worked and did work in other arenas at different times.
Three: you competently ignored my argument that holding suspected combatants without trial and torturing them is against the principals that American soldiers of the past died for; and doing these actions is worse then cursing them and pissing on their literal graves.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin.
That quote should sum up how American's deal with crime at home and abroad: and was the feeling of many an American Soldier. It saddens me you did not take note of it.
Two: Worked in Normandy: the US landed hundreds of paratroopers then met them with the rest of the armed forces in a pincer movement. Landing special forces to find or limit the movement of key targets then following with an very large armed force could have worked and did work in other arenas at different times.
Three: you competently ignored my argument that holding suspected combatants without trial and torturing them is against the principals that American soldiers of the past died for; and doing these actions is worse then cursing them and pissing on their literal graves.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin.
That quote should sum up how American's deal with crime at home and abroad: and was the feeling of many an American Soldier. It saddens me you did not take note of it.
One: one my friend is a Marine and now hates the corp. He is a stoic and believes both wars to be wrong. He also admitted to buying into some patriotic propaganda that fed his stoicism. He's still a stoic, but he is far more a cynic now then he ever was.
1) That's you friend's problem then. I'd been training the last several weeks with a Sgt who's got a prosthetic leg cause his original one got blown off in Afghanistan, but he supports both the wars going on, and wants to go back. Some people get shafted by the military life, there's no doubt about that - that's just the nature of any big organization run by flawed human beings - but in the majority of cases, the military is what you make of it.
2) It worked in Normandy, yet we didn't just pack up and head home after Hitler died, did we? Your proposal suggested dropping in special forces, meeting them with the main body of troops, and then leaving. That would've been utterly catastrophic for both Iraq and Afghanistan, unless you seriously think those countries would've rebuilt themselves into functioning, humane states after we left in the wake of shattering their regimes.
3) I didn't ignore it, I just didn't address it because I didn't have anything to add to it. Don't mistake my silence on that matter for hiding from it - I agreed with you there, that torturing prisoners is utterly wrong.
1) That's you friend's problem then. I'd been training the last several weeks with a Sgt who's got a prosthetic leg cause his original one got blown off in Afghanistan, but he supports both the wars going on, and wants to go back. Some people get shafted by the military life, there's no doubt about that - that's just the nature of any big organization run by flawed human beings - but in the majority of cases, the military is what you make of it.
2) It worked in Normandy, yet we didn't just pack up and head home after Hitler died, did we? Your proposal suggested dropping in special forces, meeting them with the main body of troops, and then leaving. That would've been utterly catastrophic for both Iraq and Afghanistan, unless you seriously think those countries would've rebuilt themselves into functioning, humane states after we left in the wake of shattering their regimes.
3) I didn't ignore it, I just didn't address it because I didn't have anything to add to it. Don't mistake my silence on that matter for hiding from it - I agreed with you there, that torturing prisoners is utterly wrong.
#1.) My friend saw a lot of waste; plus he has a piece of shrapnel in him because he was limited to wearing Interceptor because of the ways that government contracts were assigned. Ways that boarder on corrupt practices. He also doesn't want to play the politics to advance; some of his CO's got their positions by brown nosing; and they were actually quite incompetent. Then he was part of the occupation force in Iraq. From what he saw he just really doesn't believe that the US went in the the claimed reasons and he had his suspicions that the war was unjustified.
#2.) Rebuilding Afghanistan was not the US' responsibility, thus is shouldn't have been a concern. And I never said shatter the government in Afghanistan: I said go in to meet up with whatever special forces were used and then leave. The only things that would be destroyed or up rooted would have been individual units that resisted the operation and the government would have been intact; but now afraid that the US will crush them like a bug if they support another anti-American extremist group.
#3.) I apologize for my accusation and for stereotyping you: most people who firmly support the wars also seem to support the extreme and immoral treatment of prisoners; well that is the stereotype and I have found few people to prove it wrong. I should not have made an assumption and attacked you on it.
#2.) Rebuilding Afghanistan was not the US' responsibility, thus is shouldn't have been a concern. And I never said shatter the government in Afghanistan: I said go in to meet up with whatever special forces were used and then leave. The only things that would be destroyed or up rooted would have been individual units that resisted the operation and the government would have been intact; but now afraid that the US will crush them like a bug if they support another anti-American extremist group.
#3.) I apologize for my accusation and for stereotyping you: most people who firmly support the wars also seem to support the extreme and immoral treatment of prisoners; well that is the stereotype and I have found few people to prove it wrong. I should not have made an assumption and attacked you on it.
1) I never said the war in Iraq was run flawlessly. In fact it was run chock full of insanity at the beginning, and everyone knows the Interceptor vest sucked and that the Bush admin had more issues than Playboy magazine, and probably ulterior motives for the war. But that doesn't change the fact that the outcome of the war was ultimately good, and that your friend is in the stark minority. All the Marines I work with who were in Iraq agreed that we were there for a good reason, despite whatever problems they had with the war or their involvement with it, likewise with Afghanistan. Quoting a Marine who represents a small minority of veterans who became against the war will just get you dozens more who'd say we fought for the right reasons there.
2) Well, we shattered the government there in the first place, so whether or not we did it for the right reasons, we have a responsibility to repair the country. Also, you still haven't realistically addressed how in the world we'd just send in some crack special forces to decapitate Al Qaeda's leadership, then somehow lift them out of there and call it a day. That works for a plot to an episode of the A-Team, but not really when you're talking to a country of Afghanistan's size and complexity. If this were a smaller country on the scale of, say, Lebanon or something like that, then this might've been possible, but you're not taking into account the logistics and intelligence that it takes to pull this kind of thing off. You're just assuming it can be done somehow, that we'd realistically be able to determine where all the targets were at once, and be able to get to them at all, and then just book it back to the US.
2) Well, we shattered the government there in the first place, so whether or not we did it for the right reasons, we have a responsibility to repair the country. Also, you still haven't realistically addressed how in the world we'd just send in some crack special forces to decapitate Al Qaeda's leadership, then somehow lift them out of there and call it a day. That works for a plot to an episode of the A-Team, but not really when you're talking to a country of Afghanistan's size and complexity. If this were a smaller country on the scale of, say, Lebanon or something like that, then this might've been possible, but you're not taking into account the logistics and intelligence that it takes to pull this kind of thing off. You're just assuming it can be done somehow, that we'd realistically be able to determine where all the targets were at once, and be able to get to them at all, and then just book it back to the US.
1.) All of the marines that I met (a marine group on a campus for veterans) felt the way he felt: but they all admitted that they felt pressure while being in the corp to believe in the war.
But I also guess it depends on where and how you were raised to: all the marines that I know and knew were from Massachusetts.
2.) You are right about having a responsibility to fix things in Afghanistan: but it would have been better to not have gotten into the situation in the first place. I still will not believe it to be worth the cost though.
As per your argument against using the special forces: One of Bush's excuses for the war was that he knew the location of Al Qaeda's leadership; so the military should have know where they would have needed to land men to pin down Al Qaeda.
I also never said air lift: and you have completely mistaken what I believe the special forces should be used for. The special forces should block off all mountain paths that would allow the Al Qaeda leadership to escape while ground forces continue on to meet up with them. Close to World War II where paratroopers were used to cut Nazis logistic lines before Normandy.
Almost everything is possible, it's a question as to whether it's practical. Without having the intelligence the US had before invading and knowing the disposition of American and Afghan forces I can't really determine how practical it would have been; but I am damn sure it would have been more practical then the mess there is now in occupying and trying to rebuild Afghanistan.
But I also guess it depends on where and how you were raised to: all the marines that I know and knew were from Massachusetts.
2.) You are right about having a responsibility to fix things in Afghanistan: but it would have been better to not have gotten into the situation in the first place. I still will not believe it to be worth the cost though.
As per your argument against using the special forces: One of Bush's excuses for the war was that he knew the location of Al Qaeda's leadership; so the military should have know where they would have needed to land men to pin down Al Qaeda.
I also never said air lift: and you have completely mistaken what I believe the special forces should be used for. The special forces should block off all mountain paths that would allow the Al Qaeda leadership to escape while ground forces continue on to meet up with them. Close to World War II where paratroopers were used to cut Nazis logistic lines before Normandy.
Almost everything is possible, it's a question as to whether it's practical. Without having the intelligence the US had before invading and knowing the disposition of American and Afghan forces I can't really determine how practical it would have been; but I am damn sure it would have been more practical then the mess there is now in occupying and trying to rebuild Afghanistan.
as much as i am against war (as in, used as THE ABSOLUTE last resort,) that kind of behavior is particularly loathsome.
the soldiers are there because that's what their job is. anyone that thinks anyone's death should be celebrated like that should be sent to the front lines. might give them a little bit of perspective on the whole situation.
the soldiers are there because that's what their job is. anyone that thinks anyone's death should be celebrated like that should be sent to the front lines. might give them a little bit of perspective on the whole situation.
Hugo Chavez wouldnt be treated as a hero because he is a modern dictator. I dont get why still is president and nobody stops his feet. Telling people how to take fast showers, use colombian cellphones and making fun of all countries, while he is a stupid ignorant and has no culture.
Problem is the Politically correct far left here want even the illegal aliens given full citizens rights and benefits, which makes the illegals all warm and fuzzy happy. I attended a pro-illegal alien rally here a couple years ago, the place was packed with hispanics, most of whom were likely illegally here. They want to stay here, demand all the same rights, yet burned american flags while waving mexico, Honduran, Nicaraguan and even Venezuela flags.
All I kept hearing was "Viva Aztlan, Viva Chavez!!" being shouted. And the Politically correct cheering right along.
I hope to see where Chavez is disposed in a coup or better yet, shot by his own guards.
All I kept hearing was "Viva Aztlan, Viva Chavez!!" being shouted. And the Politically correct cheering right along.
I hope to see where Chavez is disposed in a coup or better yet, shot by his own guards.
That's the same kinda crap coming out from a lot of Canadians who came from Mainland China. The thing is these people who would go "Long live Chairman Mao" and waving that "Soviet wanna be" flag around are sons and daughters of corrupt&rich bureacraps from the Commie China.
well, there would be some problems regarding the illegal alien situation solved if they were given the opportunity to become citizens... however, i'm not convinced that crossing the border illegally is the right way to do it. however, if they were to become citizens, then the gov't could get taxes from them and they could gain the protection of the labour laws... but then again, this is only what i think and i'm not the best person to talk about these sorts of things since i'm woefully ignorant of the entire situation.
though in a sense i think that the states should be focusing on it's naturalized citizens first and foremost. what good is bringing more people into the country to compete for resources and employment if it can't even insure that it's own citizens are able to get them.
... though, here's something that i would love to see... take all those companies and corporations that employ illegals and fine them up the wazzoo... make the corporations pay what would have been paid in taxes to those that are working under the table (when they're caught.) if the corporations are faced with the realization that it's not as lucrative to employ aliens and the penalties are hefty, it could be more incentives for them to employ naturalized citizens.
again, though, i'm woefully ignorant of the entirety of the situation... (hey, at least i'm willing to admit it... which is more than i've seen from most.)
though in a sense i think that the states should be focusing on it's naturalized citizens first and foremost. what good is bringing more people into the country to compete for resources and employment if it can't even insure that it's own citizens are able to get them.
... though, here's something that i would love to see... take all those companies and corporations that employ illegals and fine them up the wazzoo... make the corporations pay what would have been paid in taxes to those that are working under the table (when they're caught.) if the corporations are faced with the realization that it's not as lucrative to employ aliens and the penalties are hefty, it could be more incentives for them to employ naturalized citizens.
again, though, i'm woefully ignorant of the entirety of the situation... (hey, at least i'm willing to admit it... which is more than i've seen from most.)
I don't think I have seen those stickers on any cars here in Tallahassee. I guess folks here are not as stupid as they are where you live. It is really sickening when someone would actually say they celebrate someone's death. I wonder what they would say to the faces of their survivors? I mean it, I would really like to know what they would do or say in the face of a newly widowed mother, and the small children left behind. I have a feeling they wouldn't be so pumped about death.
Love it! Now if we can add Fred Phelps into that...
It really amazes me that these morons don't understand what it is to live in this country. I would seriously love to strand them in Mexico, or another country for just a month, and then see how they feel about America.
This was the hardest part about being in the Military...putting up with these putzes, understanding they have the right to their opinion, and knowing they're morons, and unable to pound sense into their heads.
Damn...now I want to go look at guns....CURSE YOU RABBI!
It really amazes me that these morons don't understand what it is to live in this country. I would seriously love to strand them in Mexico, or another country for just a month, and then see how they feel about America.
This was the hardest part about being in the Military...putting up with these putzes, understanding they have the right to their opinion, and knowing they're morons, and unable to pound sense into their heads.
Damn...now I want to go look at guns....CURSE YOU RABBI!
Now we need you shooting at the Fred Phelps cult as they protest over our boy's funerals. Gods those people make my blood boil! I think most of the fur community would love to participate in that. A little stamped of furs, after them perhaps?
I don't see his cult over in Iraq.
- Shado
I don't see his cult over in Iraq.
- Shado
My weapons of choice would be my trusty baseball bat and hockey stick. Yup, Duel Wielding action like the freaking "Black Whirlwind" from "Water Margin" or Viking warrior.
People has no idea what the Commies (Both Soviets and Mao's goons) done to my people (Chinese) and my faith (Buddhism). What truly frighten me is the ignorant masses seemed to made up its mind that the face of Chinese civilization is a bunch of fanatic goons wearing these butt-ugly green Mao's outfit and the little Red Book.
As a genuine Chinese (My nationality is Canadian, if WW3 broke out and Canada have to fight, I'll be there like the Chinese Canadians before me in WW2 and Korean War) who care about all aspects of Chinese civilization, history, ideology, values and the numerous variety groups of people, the Communist Regimes and whoever support these are my enemies because its scums like these who created the "Culture Revolution" did the kinda damage Fascist Imperial Japan wouldn't dream of during WW2. They destroyed our soul and our identities (Mind you, there's Han, Manchu, Mongol and many more) and defined "China" as what you think today.
Have you ever seen the Chinese Commie flag and coat of arm? It looks almost identical of the Soviets! Are these Commie Bastards telling these these stuff is "genuinely Chinese"?
People has no idea what the Commies (Both Soviets and Mao's goons) done to my people (Chinese) and my faith (Buddhism). What truly frighten me is the ignorant masses seemed to made up its mind that the face of Chinese civilization is a bunch of fanatic goons wearing these butt-ugly green Mao's outfit and the little Red Book.
As a genuine Chinese (My nationality is Canadian, if WW3 broke out and Canada have to fight, I'll be there like the Chinese Canadians before me in WW2 and Korean War) who care about all aspects of Chinese civilization, history, ideology, values and the numerous variety groups of people, the Communist Regimes and whoever support these are my enemies because its scums like these who created the "Culture Revolution" did the kinda damage Fascist Imperial Japan wouldn't dream of during WW2. They destroyed our soul and our identities (Mind you, there's Han, Manchu, Mongol and many more) and defined "China" as what you think today.
Have you ever seen the Chinese Commie flag and coat of arm? It looks almost identical of the Soviets! Are these Commie Bastards telling these these stuff is "genuinely Chinese"?
I did a college paper on the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward , so I understand a bit of how CPC ran the country to ground. From getting rid of all the intellectuals so no one know how to properly farm of make iron, to driving off all the sparrows causing a mass increase of locusts; Mao did everything wrong when it come to running a country. And Stalin and Pol Pot were just as bad.
Right on man. A lot of people consider Mao as the worst tyrant the Chinese ever had in the 5000 years of history.
On the other hand, I think this guy's work may help you to understand how Commies showed up in the first place. http://policorrectus.deviantart.com/gallery/ And this will also show you that Tibet problem is not an ethnic problem. The problem is the Chinese Communist Party aka the Godless Commie Bastards.
On the other hand, I think this guy's work may help you to understand how Commies showed up in the first place. http://policorrectus.deviantart.com/gallery/ And this will also show you that Tibet problem is not an ethnic problem. The problem is the Chinese Communist Party aka the Godless Commie Bastards.
Going off topic a little - why the reversion to the goat persona for this?
On topic: I think the real villain here is clear: BUMPER STICKERS!
Putting a bumper sticker, ribbon, whatnot on your car, shirt, etc. seems to me a move to deliberately piss people off rather than express a belief nowadays. The only bumper sticker I've ever owned says which department I graduated from at college, and I never stuck it on my car. But that's just me. I do have 'BOINGDRAGON' in chrome letters under my license plate though.
Anyway, just my 2 bits. Civility requires assumptions of humanity - but political or religious slogans strip that away because then the person is just a cipher defined by what they are declaring, lumping them in with all the negative personalities that piss you off about whatever stance they're taking.
Down with bumper stickers! I'm driving and I don't need to know the details of your personal life, beliefs, how you vote, what pets you have and where your kids go to school.
On topic: I think the real villain here is clear: BUMPER STICKERS!
Putting a bumper sticker, ribbon, whatnot on your car, shirt, etc. seems to me a move to deliberately piss people off rather than express a belief nowadays. The only bumper sticker I've ever owned says which department I graduated from at college, and I never stuck it on my car. But that's just me. I do have 'BOINGDRAGON' in chrome letters under my license plate though.
Anyway, just my 2 bits. Civility requires assumptions of humanity - but political or religious slogans strip that away because then the person is just a cipher defined by what they are declaring, lumping them in with all the negative personalities that piss you off about whatever stance they're taking.
Down with bumper stickers! I'm driving and I don't need to know the details of your personal life, beliefs, how you vote, what pets you have and where your kids go to school.
I have the ribbons and bumper stickers, but they say support gamers, support individuality, and support vampires. the sticker says "Jesus, protect me from your followers." a sticker that says, "Religion is for followers" and my license plate holder that says, "Become a furry. one of us one of us one of us"
This is my way of screwing with the sheep minded morons out there.
This is my way of screwing with the sheep minded morons out there.
The Che shirts drive me up the wall, bat-shit fucking crazy. Why is this guy seen as a hero? WHY?!
Oh, and for your viewing pleasure: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQcUkd1w_TY
Oh, and for your viewing pleasure: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQcUkd1w_TY
For now, I'd like to get this: http://17503.spreadshirt.com/large-.....ttons-A1816979
I would have said shouldn't that be Bush or Cheney on it till I noticed it was limited to political opponents.
I want one of these posters if they were real:
http://www.motifake.com/bush-hair-d.....ter-69728.html
http://www.motifake.com/the-shepher.....ter-39226.html
I want one of these posters if they were real:
http://www.motifake.com/bush-hair-d.....ter-69728.html
http://www.motifake.com/the-shepher.....ter-39226.html
Ask and ye shall receive.
http://17503.spreadshirt.com/viva-l.....rture-I1307632
A variety of options.
http://17503.spreadshirt.com/viva-l.....rture-I1307632
A variety of options.
And oddly enough...I am a mostly-liberal gun-toting hippy!
I just don't think the people who volunteered to risk death in support of this country should be cheered when they die, nor do I think "Support Our Troops" is a horrible phrase. If it wasn't for the sacrifices made by the men and women in those flag-draped coffins, Mr. Bumpersticker wouldn't be around to turn his nose up at them.
I don't support all wars.
I don't support all politicians.
I don't support a lot of other crap that left and right argue about, and I DON'T SUPPORT THE LEFT OR RIGHT.
Putting blinders on yourself based on political lines is one of the worst things a person can do to themselves. Do what you feel is the right thing for the world in which you live, but do so based on your own beliefs, not via some vague, imaginary separation.
I just don't think the people who volunteered to risk death in support of this country should be cheered when they die, nor do I think "Support Our Troops" is a horrible phrase. If it wasn't for the sacrifices made by the men and women in those flag-draped coffins, Mr. Bumpersticker wouldn't be around to turn his nose up at them.
I don't support all wars.
I don't support all politicians.
I don't support a lot of other crap that left and right argue about, and I DON'T SUPPORT THE LEFT OR RIGHT.
Putting blinders on yourself based on political lines is one of the worst things a person can do to themselves. Do what you feel is the right thing for the world in which you live, but do so based on your own beliefs, not via some vague, imaginary separation.
Strange that sort of behaviour would get you stabbed at a set of traffic lights here or rammed
Since guns aren't very common in Australia it's usually stabby stabby.
People put things on their cars I don't agree with but it's stupid to do things like that.
Don't worry with Prius's brake issues he'll probably crash.
Since guns aren't very common in Australia it's usually stabby stabby.
People put things on their cars I don't agree with but it's stupid to do things like that.
Don't worry with Prius's brake issues he'll probably crash.
Comments