OT: The Debate

[Jared]

Man you really don't have a clue about Afghanistan. A failure? Your really letting politics cloud your thinking man. You really think Afghanistan is a failure?

US Special Forces performed brilliantly in Afghanistan. Kerry and Bergin can say whatever they want,but I'll bet the Russians were impressed by what the US soldiers accomplished there.

I'll be away from the internet for a little while, but I just want to say that in criticizing some of the decisions made re: Tora Bora, I (and I hope wco) are in no way saying that the Special Forces performed poorly. I agree with Jack that they performed well in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm definitely not saying that the soldiers screwed the pooch...they did an amazing job. What people are criticizing are some of the decisions by the higher ups. I definitely wasn't impugning what SF did.

As for WCO....

Maybe you "warriors" should stop being so thin-skinned and learned to deal with independent ideas. You're suppose to be able to deal with bullets flying over your heads and bombs blowing up around you but if anyone criticizes your hallowed missions in any form, you're not supporting the troops or your disparaging their valor?

I don't think their being thin skinned and saying that they can't deal with independent ideas is completely unfair. You have the right to state your opinion, as they do as well. But it's worthless to stereotype them as not being able to deal with independent ideas because they disagree with your ideas. They probably have their own opinions that are different from you on this, not because they are lemmings that follow whatever they're told, but because that's the opinion they've developed. Don't be a jerk about this because they have a different worldview.

[XXXIV]

Civilians that have never served or seen combat should really take a pass on judging what our soldiers did in those mountains. Especially based on information passed on by a politician. Not a smart move at all. But then again people that play politics are asses anyhow.

Agrees 100%

I especially enjoyed the last sentence.

[wco81]

Oh please.

The stereotype is that anyone who criticizes the conduct of the war is directly attacking the troops or undermining their integrity. It's this grudge that some Vietnam vets hold against the anti-war protestors.

Yeah the special forces took over Afghanistan with minimal ground troops and maximal air power. But they haven't held any of it. Karzai is mayor of Kabul and little else according to some accounts.

Again it's not their fault. Political decisions determined that most of the military would be deployed in Iraq instead of Afghanistan. If pointing that out means I'm being political and disparaging the work of the soldiers deployed in Afghanistan, so be it.

That isn't my intent but if the "warriors" want to take it that way, that's their problem, not mine.

[Jackdog]

Man you really don't have a clue about Afghanistan. A failure? Your really letting politics cloud your thinking man. You really think Afghanistan is a failure?

US Special Forces performed brilliantly in Afghanistan. Kerry and Bergin can say whatever they want,but I'll bet the Russians were impressed by what the US soldiers accomplished there.

I'll be away from the internet for a little while, but I just want to say that in criticizing some of the decisions made re: Tora Bora, I (and I hope wco) are in no way saying that the Special Forces performed poorly. I agree with Jack that they performed well in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm definitely not saying that the soldiers screwed the pooch...they did an amazing job. What people are criticizing are some of the decisions by the higher ups. I definitely wasn't impugning what SF did.

As for WCO....

Maybe you "warriors" should stop being so thin-skinned and learned to deal with independent ideas. You're suppose to be able to deal with bullets flying over your heads and bombs blowing up around you but if anyone criticizes your hallowed missions in any form, you're not supporting the troops or your disparaging their valor?

I don't think their being thin skinned and saying that they can't deal with independent ideas is completely unfair. You have the right to state your opinion, as they do as well. But it's worthless to stereotype them as not being able to deal with independent ideas because they disagree with your ideas. They probably have their own opinions that are different from you on this, not because they are lemmings that follow whatever they're told, but because that's the opinion they've developed. Don't be a jerk about this because they have a different worldview.

No Jared. The thin-skinned "Warriors" that fight and die everyday gave him the right to voice his opinion. He can be a jerk, play video games, and Monday morning QB all he wants. Those "hallowed missions" have paid off. I glad he enjoy's it.

Now because of politics,people are begining to hate on the very men and women that protect their sorry asses. The only things they know about Afghanistan is what they read or hear from their candidate of choice. Politics is just like pu$$y. It makes you say and do the stupidest sh!t to play with it.

But that's cool because these people really don't grasp the concept that this is an all volunteer military. The soldiers that serve in a combat MOS have chosen to do that. It take's a lot of balls to put your politics aside and do what your country ask. I can tell you for a fact that many soldiers do not like the current administration and it's policies. But that dosen't stop them from doing their duty.

These soldiers are Dems,Reps,Muslims,Christains,Gay,hell you name it. These people are about as independent in their thinking as it get's. They enjoy the concept of free independent ideas. So much in fact,that they will die to give it to others or protect those that already have it and take it for granted.

I miss serving with people like that. I hope when they come back home this country's climate of hate has changed. Because of politics it's ugly right now. They deserve better.

[wco81]

No soldier in my lifetime is responsible for my civil and constitutional rights.

The US has never been in danger of being taken over. Annihilated yes, taken over, no.

The soldiers who won constitutional rights for all of us are the ones who fought in the 18th century, the early 19th century. You could also make arguments about WWII (the same ones which Grover Norquist called un-American).

Maybe if I was abducted while overseas and they rescued me can you make that labored claim. But there are Americans being abducted in Iraq right now and unfortunately, they're not being rescued.

Those fighting and dying in Iraq isn't granting me the ability to exercise my free speech. The Iraqi insurgents aren't threatening the territorial integrity of the US. They're not endangering our civil institutions which guarantee our civil and constitutional rights (no our current govt. is more of a threat to take away those rights than any external entity). Now, they might have made Israeli citizens slightly safer but if Saddam in his weakened state was stupid enough to take on Israel, he would have been slapped down hard.


Yeah I play games, post on the Internet, play Monday morning QB. But I also help pay for the salaries of those soldiers. And when I express my opinions which pisses off those soldiers, I don't for one moment think that the Bill of Rights has anything to do with our overarching global military deployments (if I was a businessman with international interests, then I would probably be more appreciative of this global military presence).

No I'm grateful to the people who drafted and ratified the Constitution and those who've subsequently defended it parliamentarily and jurisprudentially from assaults and attempts to mitigate the rights provided for in this document.

Because I know better than that cowboys and indians BS.

[FatPitcher]

There are plenty of people in the WTC who no longer have constitutional rights.

What's protecting us from terrorists now? Sanctions? Baggage screeners? The UN?

[Jackdog]

There are plenty of people in the WTC who no longer have constitutional rights.

What's protecting us from terrorists now? Sanctions? Baggage screeners? The UN?

WCO and his Bill of Rights. God knows that paper can keep our country safe. Also some Cowboys and Indians that need a raise.

[wco81]

Well it isn't anything to do with what's going on in Iraq.

Unless the soldiers are going to be screening passengers, another 9/11 is more likely going to be prevented by protecting airline/airport security than any so-called preventive war.

Of course in the wake of 9/11, the Patriot Act has been more of a threat to American constitutional rights than any of Sadr's militiamen.

Maybe the returning US troops should march on the US Capitol like Roman Legions used to on the Roman Senate go protect our constitutional rights.

[bdoughty]

JackDog

I thought you were going to stay out of these threads my friend? Remember they only get you riled up and you end up saying bad things. You fought the good fight and there will always be the Desktop Commandos like WCO. I doubt you can lose a leg playing the Desktop Commando. Bullets flying by your head are not an issue for the Desktop Commando. C-Rations? Pssh the Desktop Command can fight with a Whopper in one hand and a Frosty in the other.

No soldier in my lifetime is responsible for my civil and constitutional rights.

And apparently the Desktop Commando can do it all with nobodys help. All that freedom to play Desktop Commando was paid for by the taxes his ancestors payed as they sat in a dimly candle lit room writing George Washington that bloodshed for freedom will simply not do.


Fight on Desktop Commando because behind your keyboard you will change the world!


Now back to OU/Texas Tech

[wco81]

Desktop Commando?

Wow, you gotta find an open mike night somewhere.

That stuff is pure gold.

Yeah it's only a piece of paper. Enlighten us civilians. Don't soliders take an oath to defend the Constitution?

Or they can't be bothered with some piece of "paper"?

[ProvoAnC]

Yeah I play games, post on the Internet, play Monday morning QB. But I also help pay for the salaries of those soldiers.

I always like it when I get this line, albeit in a different vein; I usually get it from mopes that can't even spell salary. I didn't know soldiers and cops and anyone else thats classified as "the man" doesn't have to pay taxes! I can't wait for this April...I'll just write FREE FREE FREE all over my forms and send them in with a side note for retroactive pay for the last 5 years.

I pay my own f***in salary

[Brando70]

I don't think anyone is questioning the performance of our soldiers. The argument is more with how those soldiers have been deployed:

10,000 to Afghanistan to get Osama and overthrow the Taliban
150,000 to Iraq to get Hussein and liberate Iraq.

Those are my guesses on figures but you get the point. Now we certainly accomplished what we needed to accomplish as far as overthrowing the Taliban. But you look at the figures, and it seems to the lay person that Hussein was a much greater priority than Osama. And to that lay person, that makes little sense, even if you supported getting rid of Hussein. Bin Laden has a value much greater than whether he's actually planning any of these terrorist attacks. He is a symbol to the terrorists, a man who was able to attack the US and so far, go unpunished for it. Maybe he is dead, but from what I've read, the intelligence consensus is he is still alive. I'd like to know for sure.

No one is questioning the ability or performance of the troops over there. Jesus Christ, we overthrew two governments, including one with a substantial military, in a matter of weeks. We are killing far more insurgents than they are killing us. Our troops are the best in the world, and that has been reinforced the last three years.

What a lot of people are asking, and what Kerry's attacks during the debate added up to, are: why is Hussein more important than bin Laden? Unfortunately, I didn't really hear Bush offer an answer, other than to say the same ol' same ol' of how the world is safer without him in power. That's not an answer, that's a spin point.

[Teal]

"No soldier in my lifetime is responsible for my civil and constitutional rights."




...wco, you're full of it. Go save some elf in some stupid RPG why don't you? I'm sure provo and Jack need no defending from me, but you, my friend, are on the bottom of these boys' shoes, especially spewing this third grade " I can do it MYSELF!!!" garbage. I hear my four year old say it all the time...and he's about as right as you are now about his status. Let's put a gun in your hand and Osama right in front of you, and sit back and watch you piss your pants. Your conception of reality must consist of watching reruns of "Survivor".
Our men and women who have the cajones to voluntarily get shot at to keep your sorry @$$ from having to, by preventing them from waging their little jihad baloney over here, deserve a hell of a lot more respect from people like you. But Jack's right, they fight so you can be a dumb@$$ if you choose. Make no mistake about it...you are being just that...

[Jackdog]

Desktop Commando?

Wow, you gotta find an open mike night somewhere.

That stuff is pure gold.

Yeah it's only a piece of paper. Enlighten us civilians. Don't soliders take an oath to defend the Constitution?

Or they can't be bothered with some piece of "paper"?

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Speaks for itself huh? Our Constitution is only as good as the military that protect's it.

By the way I can't enlighten civilians, I need someone else that thinks independently to do that

I am sure that the good people of Afghanistan,Iraq,Bosnia & Kosovo Hati,Somalia, ect,ect.. are happy that US Presidents have made it a priority to defend their rights as well.

What made sure their rights were protected? A piece of paper or a soldier?

Enlighten me. Do you think we could have freed those countries without the convictions that our freedoms give us? Do you think the dictators and warlords caved in because we read our Constitution to them?

Anyhow,let's just agree to disagree.

I only posted in this thread because our troops were questioned. I have no love for politics and the people that play them.

WCO I respect your opinons and admire your conviction to your beliefs.

Peace.

[Jackdog]

Yeah I play games, post on the Internet, play Monday morning QB. But I also help pay for the salaries of those soldiers.

I always like it when I get this line, albeit in a different vein; I usually get it from mopes that can't even spell salary. I didn't know soldiers and cops and anyone else thats classified as "the man" doesn't have to pay taxes! I can't wait for this April...I'll just write FREE FREE FREE all over my forms and send them in with a side note for retroactive pay for the last 5 years.

I pay my own f***ing salary

No doubt!

[seanmac31]

"No soldier in my lifetime is responsible for my civil and constitutional rights."




...wco, you're full of it. Go save some elf in some stupid RPG why don't you? I'm sure provo and Jack need no defending from me, but you, my friend, are on the bottom of these boys' shoes, especially spewing this third grade " I can do it MYSELF!!!" garbage. I hear my four year old say it all the time...and he's about as right as you are now about his status. Let's put a gun in your hand and Osama right in front of you, and sit back and watch you piss your pants. Your conception of reality must consist of watching reruns of "Survivor".
Our men and women who have the cajones to voluntarily get shot at to keep your sorry @$$ from having to, by preventing them from waging their little jihad baloney over here, deserve a hell of a lot more respect from people like you. But Jack's right, they fight so you can be a dumb@$$ if you choose. Make no mistake about it...you are being just that...

Actually, he's completely right. The integrity of the United States and the laws of the country have not been endangered since the Civil War. That's not up for debate. World War One was no threat to the existence of the United States, nor was World War Two. The soldiers that have fought in every war since 1865 have done so in the name of American national interests, not in defense of the country's territorial integrity. I'm not sure why that's such a difficult concept to grasp.

[bdoughty]

Actually, he's completely right. The integrity of the United States and the laws of the country have not been endangered since the Civil War. That's not up for debate. World War One was no threat to the existence of the United States, nor was World War Two.

Guess that depends on the color of your skin or what an exact explanation of a "threat to existance is"?

I think the issue is up for debate, explaining this whole forum process we post on and the opinions we differ with. Does Pearl Harbor ring a bell? I hate to speak for the 2,000+ people killed during the bombing in American territory (? I know it was not a state in '41) but they might just disagree with you about no threats to the existance of the US. What about all the Japanese Americans who were imprisoned in camps during the war? I think the total was over 100,000? I think they would have to disagree with you also.


EDIT: I did not read the last part of your reply before replying. Oh well I will leave it as is so the Japanese Americans on this board will cherish me for defending them.

[seanmac31]

Actually, he's completely right. The integrity of the United States and the laws of the country have not been endangered since the Civil War. That's not up for debate. World War One was no threat to the existence of the United States, nor was World War Two.

Guess that depends on the color of your skin or what an exact explanation of a "threat to existance is"?

I think the issue is up for debate, explaining this whole forum process we post on and the opinions we differ with. Does Pearl Harbor ring a bell? I hate to speak for the 2,000+ people killed during the bombing in American territory (? I know it was not a state in '41) but they might just disagree with you about no threats to the existance of the US. What about all the Japaneese Americans who were imprisoned in camps during the war? I think the total was over 100,000? I think they would have to disagree with you also.

Pearl Harbor was not a threat to the existence of the United States. It was certainly a threat to anyone who happened to be in the vicinity at the time, but that's a different issue. Neither Japan nor Germany had either the resources or the inclination to invade the United States, and Yamamoto's strategy for dealing with the United States was essentially defensive in nature- knocking out the US fleet early and allowing Japan to secure a defensible position that would allow them to negotiate a peace from a position of strength. It was an attack, but it was in no way a threat to put an end to the United States as an entity. US citizens have been attacked and killed since then, and plenty of US soldiers have died-almost exclusively on foreign battlefields-but there has been no violent act against this country that has come remotely close to putting an end either to its territorial integrity or its system of government.

Now if you want to talk about the threats to the rights of citizens of this country, that's a different story. But those rights were ultimately guarded and/or obtained through civil means, not military ones (with the obvious exception of the abolition of slavery, but again we're talking post 1865 here). I'm sure that neither the Native American tribes at the end of the ninteenth century nor the Japanese-American citizens interned during the Second World War are coming out of the woodworks to thank the U.S. military for protecting them.

[bdoughty]

It was an attack, but it was in no way a threat to put an end to the United States as an entity.

Okay my brain hurts now. See the EDIT on my last reply... I am moving far away from this thread.

[seanmac31]

Me too. Every political thread on this forum ends up breaking down in exactly the same way and with exactly the same people on each side of the battle lines.

I'd rather talk about the basketball games, all things being equal.

[Leebo33]

I'd rather talk about the basketball games, all things being equal.

Oh, so you want all things to be equal...COMMIE

I wish someone would talk basketball around here with me. We may have lost ID this year, but Live and ESPN are big improvements compared to last year IMO.

Anyway back OT...they were showing one of the 1992 debates on CSPAN tonight and it made me sad. Back then I had a Democrat I could vote for (and did twice), a Republican that could speak clearly, and a crazy little guy that made me laugh.

[Parker]

Debate didn't make a difference? Think again:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6159637/site/newsweek/

first poll conducted entirely since debates. Can't wait to see the polls that had Kerry closer or ahead of Bush even before.

What should worry Bush most is his approval rating is below 46 percent again. That is pathetic and an incumbent is very unlikely to win at that mark.

[XXXIV]

Viva La france

[wco81]

Speaks for itself huh? Our Constitution is only as good as the military that protect's it.

Well every member of govt. takes an oath to defend the Constitution.

When Watergate went down and Nixon eventually resigned, foreigners marveled that we had a change of govt. without violence because in most other countries there might have been a military coup d'Etat. (subsequently, you had the Soviet Union go down and the tanks refusing to fire on civilians. Tienamen Square went the other way. And Serbian soldiers also refused to shoot civilians, eventually leading to Milosovic's capture).

On the other hand, the Ohio National Guard shoots students protesting at Kent State. That's right, they were exercising their rights to free speech. Did people in the National Guard took an oath to defend the Constitution? I'm not saying those particular soldiers did wrong. The governor who called them in was clearly wrong and the orders to shoot probably came from above, not from the guardsmen exercising their own discretion.

Getting back to Watergate, if politicians of both parties and the judges didn't challenge Nixon, he would effectively have gotten away with abusing the Constitution. No solider was involved in that crisis.

I'm not saying American troops will never be involved in saving our freedoms. They are certainly doing their part to preserve our way of life, which includes cheap energy to provide for our standard of living. Some would argue that economic prosperity has more to do with our way of life than constitutional and civil freedoms.

And who knows, we could have another close election (both sides are gearing up for the possibility by hiring a lot of lawyers) where the military may play a role in the outcome.

[Teal]

"Debate didn't make a difference? Think again"


I'm watching Talledega right now, and the similarities between it and this poll crap are hilarious. Talledega...so and so is IN THE LEAD after 20 laps, no, wait... now so and so TAKES THE LEAD!! There's no need to get excited about your driver in the lead even 3/4 of the way through the race...because it's gonna change. But I love that people will jump on any and every poll that measures every heartbeat, and when there's a fluctuation in the heart beat of the slightest...OH BOY, OH BOY, OH BOY!!! It just doesn't matter...but go ahead, get all excited if that makes your boat float. The only poll that matters is the one we'll step in to on November 2nd...