to blaster, pbx, and all our military players/families

[12345]

Well, I think this thread has become wholey contaminated. If you're going to argue about government, could you please do it in a different thread? The current argument has nothing to do with the members of the military or what they do.

Some of you may take this for granted, but America's military does the US an extreme service. By that I mean, we're the only country in the world that can fight a war, lose, and not fear a counterattack. Do you know why? Because the US Navy has unrivaled control of the world's oceans. Even fighting a lost cause, we are safe. Ask the rest of the world... counterattacks are a bitch.

They are defending you from the bad decisions of your leaders. So please take the arguments about those leaders elsewhere.

[van]

I think this thread was contaminated very quickly... one might almost call it a new thread.

I think it's been clearly pointed out by several people (including myself) that we have great appreciation for the military. On the other hand, our military is effectively a tool of our political leaders. Don't get me wrong, I respect and agree with the separation of our civilian/military leadership. But I think it's extremely dangerous to discuss US military operations without remembering that one jackass with a daddy syndrome can screw everyone.

Sigh, I'm cranky. This is why I don't post. No more from me!

P.S. Re: Lieberman - you must be joking. The man has lost all credibility.

[13]

*clap* van

[Weasel]

heh true Van, but that particular quote rang true, at least for me.

[Hades]

Oh snap, you just got served!

[Medios]

Lieberman lost credibility?

Was this before or after he won re-election as an independent? Joe Lieberman is one of the few Democrats that will go against his party for what he believes in. Regardless of his position you should applaud the man for going against the machine.

Mike

[brady]

well said pat...

[brady]

oops, wrong thread

[Avatar]

Interesting posts Van, good job. I agree with the whole post, and especially:

"Loyalty to our country means defending the PRINCIPLES of our country, and supporting those elements of our country that keep our society alive and well."

If you consider most of the current hot-topic issues from a perspective based on the constitution, it's easier to see where some politicians lose that focus on what their duties should be.

Charles

[*juggleblood*]

[quote="Medios":382d1gg0]Lieberman lost credibility?

Was this before or after he won re-election as an independent? Joe Lieberman is one of the few Democrats that will go against his party for what he believes in. Regardless of his position you should applaud the man for going against the machine.

Mike[/quote:382d1gg0]

That's an interesting perspective. I think a lot of people would say that Ned Lamont was the man who lost against Lieberman's political machine.

And applaud him for standing up for what he believes in? Well what exactly does he believe in? He believes Saddam had wmd's. He believes Iraq and 9/11 were somehow related. He believes that the war on terror can be won by keeping the peace between Sunni's and Shia's on the streets of Bagdhad. He believes that we can create a stable, pro-American government in Iraq with 120-140,000 US troops. Well, what if all those beliefs are wrong? Should I still applaud him for standing up in the face of reality?

But don't take my word for anything. I'm just a pinko commie defeatist cut-n-run liberal. We'll probably kill all the bad guys in Iraq and then we win and I'll just feel stupid for being such a pansy ass party pooper.

But can someone remind who the bad guys are exactly? I thought it was Saddam loyalists at first, but then it was just Sunni insurgents right? and after that it was Moktada al-Sadr, but then he joined the government. So then it was just the insurgents again. And after that it was Al-Qaeda, but now Moktada al-Sadr is fighting us again. So if we're fighting the Sunni's and we're fighting the Shia's and we're fighting the foreign Jihadi's why can't we just withdraw and nuke the place and kill everybody? Seems to make more sense.

[firebrand]

[quote="Avatar":3kfea5wr]If you consider most of the current hot-topic issues from a perspective based on the constitution, it's easier to see where some politicians lose that focus on what their duties should be. [/quote:3kfea5wr]

nods. it's pretty sad when a politician gets elected simply for his views on a hot topic, i.e. gun control, abortion, his personal religious preference, etc. i have heard people say they are going to vote for a person based on something as private as that candidate's religious choices. come to find out later, that politician was the worst possible choice for the job, but hey....he's "following what i believe in". never mind that that politician just eminent domained your neighborhood and took everything you worked your whole life for, leaving you broke and homeless just so he can put up a new condo complex.

"oh look! i've cut you. what a shame" --ridley --> dungeons and dragons

[Medios]

[quote="juggleblood":2f71fade][quote="Medios":2f71fade]Lieberman lost credibility?

Was this before or after he won re-election as an independent? Joe Lieberman is one of the few Democrats that will go against his party for what he believes in. Regardless of his position you should applaud the man for going against the machine.

Mike[/quote:2f71fade]

That's an interesting perspective. I think a lot of people would say that Ned Lamont was the man who lost against Lieberman's political machine.

And applaud him for standing up for what he believes in? Well what exactly does he believe in? He believes Saddam had wmd's. He believes Iraq and 9/11 were somehow related. He believes that the war on terror can be won by keeping the peace between Sunni's and Shia's on the streets of Bagdhad. He believes that we can create a stable, pro-American government in Iraq with 120-140,000 US troops. Well, what if all those beliefs are wrong? Should I still applaud him for standing up in the face of reality?

But don't take my word for anything. I'm just a pinko commie defeatist cut-n-run liberal. We'll probably kill all the bad guys in Iraq and then we win and I'll just feel stupid for being such a pansy ass party pooper.

But can someone remind who the bad guys are exactly? I thought it was Saddam loyalists at first, but then it was just Sunni insurgents right? and after that it was Moktada al-Sadr, but then he joined the government. So then it was just the insurgents again. And after that it was Al-Qaeda, but now Moktada al-Sadr is fighting us again. So if we're fighting the Sunni's and we're fighting the Shia's and we're fighting the foreign Jihadi's why can't we just withdraw and nuke the place and kill everybody? Seems to make more sense.[/quote:2f71fade]

I never said he was right or wrong. Just that he bucked his own party and thats commendable. The rank and file dems and republicans need to be watched the closest. Ned Lamont had the full support of the democratic party and Lieberman still won. This says something about politics. Ross Perot proved that people will vote independent if the candidate is right. I like to see independents win and I hope it occurs more in the future.

Rub I never called you a pinko commie defeatist cut-n-run liberal.
I think it was whiney pussy is what I said. Nothing but love brother.

Mike

[Weasel]

[quote="juggleblood":322xnzt4]But can someone remind who the bad guys are exactly? I thought it was Saddam loyalists at first, but then it was just Sunni insurgents right? and after that it was Moktada al-Sadr, but then he joined the government. So then it was just the insurgents again. And after that it was Al-Qaeda, but now Moktada al-Sadr is fighting us again.[/quote:322xnzt4]
I think Bush originally declared war on, like, maybe three or four Egyptian guys, an Algerian, and this other guy who kind of looks Lebanese but could be Syrian.

[Shazuko]

I'm not going to walk on a bed of 'hot political coals'...instead, I'm just gonna comment on the subject, which is what got my attention in the first place...
What you guys go out and willfully do is much appreciated by many, especially during this time knowing the possibility of being placed in 'hostile circumstances'...I have, and will continue to, raise a frosty cold one for you guys many many times!

<Shazuko Roku Ryuu>
<Shazuko Six Dragons>
<~Chaos~>

---
"SILENT ENIM LEGES INTER ARMA."
(Laws are silent in time of war.)
~Cicero

[Eireannach]

Nil deireadh an chogaidh feicthe ach acusan ata marbh.