Operation Yellow Elephant

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: chambersc

You could relate that point to the fact that one needs to look out for himself and his family (assuming males here). This is why we have the right to bear arms, for protection of ones property. Further stretching this argument you could apply it to the Young Republicans. The idea to "sign up or shut up" is a valid point, irregardless of the idea it presents, because when there is a dire need for new bodies in the millitary these people are playing arm-chair politics. A certain sect proclaims that they support a certain position 100% yet are passive when it comes to the idea of committing themselves to the cause that they are so needed? Is this logical? How can one proclaim to be "all for" something yet be passive to that something ... isn't it just a contradiction?

Do you support preventing AIDS in Africa? Helping the homeless? Feeding the hungry? Are you "all for" these ideas?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Do you support preventing AIDS in Africa? Helping the homeless? Feeding the hungry? Are you "all for" these ideas?

Last time I checked, none of the things you questioned him about involve US soldiers dying. You and I have gone back and forth on this so I don't mean to rehash it nor do I wish to fight with you as we seem to be on the same page on a few issues. I am just pointing out that supporting causes that don't involve almost 2000 men and women to come home in a casket are noble and can be done by simply writing a check or volunteering down at the local soup kitchen.

Causes that have proven to only reduce the number of living Americans by fighting an unwinnable war is somewhat different than supporting AIDS prevention in Africa IMO.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Man, when there was a draft the Hippies that avoided it were scum, but now that the privileged don't go why it's a different matter.

(psst.. there's not a draft going on right now..)

And trust me, if there was a draft, I'd probably treat all the draft dodgers who fled the country as scum as well.

No draft now? You're kidding?

And the Hippies didn't go to Canada, they stayed here to pollinate the flowers.

The issue is not the draft but the lack of support for a war the country is engaged in, and the attitudes toward those who don't. Trust me, if there were any way the right wing could hammer the left with a lack of supplying soldiers, they would do so in a heart beat. It's simply a fact that support for the war but a lack of willingness to sign up opens you to a potential charge of hypocrisy.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: chambersc

You could relate that point to the fact that one needs to look out for himself and his family (assuming males here). This is why we have the right to bear arms, for protection of ones property. Further stretching this argument you could apply it to the Young Republicans. The idea to "sign up or shut up" is a valid point, irregardless of the idea it presents, because when there is a dire need for new bodies in the millitary these people are playing arm-chair politics. A certain sect proclaims that they support a certain position 100% yet are passive when it comes to the idea of committing themselves to the cause that they are so needed? Is this logical? How can one proclaim to be "all for" something yet be passive to that something ... isn't it just a contradiction?

Do you support preventing AIDS in Africa? Helping the homeless? Feeding the hungry? Are you "all for" these ideas?

AIDS - no
HOMELESS - no
FEEDING - no

point?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Do you support preventing AIDS in Africa? Helping the homeless? Feeding the hungry? Are you "all for" these ideas?

Last time I checked, none of the things you questioned him about involve US soldiers dying. You and I have gone back and forth on this so I don't mean to rehash it nor do I wish to fight with you as we seem to be on the same page on a few issues. I am just pointing out that supporting causes that don't involve almost 2000 men and women to come home in a casket are noble and can be done by simply writing a check or volunteering down at the local soup kitchen.

Causes that have proven to only reduce the number of living Americans by fighting an unwinnable war is somewhat different than supporting AIDS prevention in Africa IMO.

I was actually addressing this line:

How can one proclaim to be "all for" something yet be passive to that something ... isn't it just a contradiction?

This poster seems to want to speak in generalities about the issue, while you want to drag it back to specifics and "US soldiers dying".

I am arguing with him for the moment on *his* quote.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Man, when there was a draft the Hippies that avoided it were scum, but now that the privileged don't go why it's a different matter.

(psst.. there's not a draft going on right now..)

And trust me, if there was a draft, I'd probably treat all the draft dodgers who fled the country as scum as well.

No draft now? You're kidding?

And the Hippies didn't go to Canada, they stayed here to pollinate the flowers.

The issue is not the draft but the lack of support for a war the country is engaged in, and the attitudes toward those who don't. Trust me, if there were any way the right wing could hammer the left with a lack of supplying soldiers, they would do so in a heart beat. It's simply a fact that support for the war but a lack of willingness to sign up opens you to a potential charge of hypocrisy.

If the issue is not the draft, WTF did you bring it up for?


Yes, people who call Democrats cowards or traitors for their anti-war views are just as moronic as those who call Republicans cowards and chickenhawks for their non anti-war views. What's your point?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: chambersc

You could relate that point to the fact that one needs to look out for himself and his family (assuming males here). This is why we have the right to bear arms, for protection of ones property. Further stretching this argument you could apply it to the Young Republicans. The idea to "sign up or shut up" is a valid point, irregardless of the idea it presents, because when there is a dire need for new bodies in the millitary these people are playing arm-chair politics. A certain sect proclaims that they support a certain position 100% yet are passive when it comes to the idea of committing themselves to the cause that they are so needed? Is this logical? How can one proclaim to be "all for" something yet be passive to that something ... isn't it just a contradiction?

Do you support preventing AIDS in Africa? Helping the homeless? Feeding the hungry? Are you "all for" these ideas?

AIDS - no
HOMELESS - no
FEEDING - no

point?

Fine. My point was to see if you supported any efforts that you did not participate 100% in. You claim that is not the case. Congratulations, I guess.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
This poster seems to want to speak in generalities about the issue, while you want to drag it back to specifics and "US soldiers dying".

I am arguing with him for the moment on *his* quote.

I'll step aside then. My bad

You know I get real pissy when the people I stood along side of die for what I see as a an invalid, inept attempt at defeating terrorism. I want to protect them all and see them all come home alive to their families but I know I can't, hence my frustration.

Carry on.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: chambersc

You could relate that point to the fact that one needs to look out for himself and his family (assuming males here). This is why we have the right to bear arms, for protection of ones property. Further stretching this argument you could apply it to the Young Republicans. The idea to "sign up or shut up" is a valid point, irregardless of the idea it presents, because when there is a dire need for new bodies in the millitary these people are playing arm-chair politics. A certain sect proclaims that they support a certain position 100% yet are passive when it comes to the idea of committing themselves to the cause that they are so needed? Is this logical? How can one proclaim to be "all for" something yet be passive to that something ... isn't it just a contradiction?

Do you support preventing AIDS in Africa? Helping the homeless? Feeding the hungry? Are you "all for" these ideas?

AIDS - no
HOMELESS - no
FEEDING - no

point?

Fine. My point was to see if you supported any efforts that you did not participate 100% in. You claim that is not the case. Congratulations, I guess.

Alright. Sorry?

 

[KidViciou$]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Ok.. what if there WAS a dire need for firemen.. and someone decided NOT to become one.. should the existing firemen NOT go put out their house if its on fire? What if there was a fire need for policemen.. and someone decided not to join.. Should the police ignore a hostage situation at their house?

And how about a more REALISTIC comparison.. what if there is a shortage of doctors or nurses at your local hospital.. and you decide NOT to become a doctor or a nurse.. If you have a heart attack should the existing doctors NOT treat you? The beauty of THAT comparison is that there actually IS a shortage of doctors and nurses in many communities.. as opposed to a shortage of troops.. Either way, regardless if you want to claim there IS a shortage of troops, the above examples prove why the argument is patently absurd.

How about this.. Should only the people who support the war gain the BENEFITS of such said war? Its great to say you oppose it.. But if the war in Iraq results in a more stable and friendly Middle East, should those who opposed it be allowed to benefit from that? Maybe all the Gitmo prisoners should then be moved into the neighborhoods of those who opposed the war?

I'm sure a lot of people opposed us getting involved in World War II as well.. Should the people who opposed it not be allowed to travel to Japan, German, Italy etc? Lets take that argument its conclusion.. should those who didn't fight for the Union, or whose families did not fight for the union in the past, be allowed to be American citizens, or should we kick everyone out of the United States whose family opposed the Union in the Civil war?

How about this.. If you didn't fight in the first Gulf War, should you be allowed to purchase gasoline that comes from oil from Kuwait or Saudi Arabia? After all, if you didn't serve why should you be allowed to use something you didn't support?

now you're making a different argument, i never said that since a person "supports" the war but doesn't enlist shouldn't have the military fighting in their name or receive the "benefits" of the war, i don't support the war, but the troops still fight in my name because i'm an american! that should take care of the majority of your "argument"

the topic of discussion is that there are able bodied persons who "support" the war, but even when there is a dire need for more manpower, these people won't sign up, knowing that their help is requested!

edit: all the same, i bare any bad that is comitted by our troops and our politicians as well because i'm an american. but the american thing to do is to make sure we don't commit the same mistakes twice!

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
This poster seems to want to speak in generalities about the issue, while you want to drag it back to specifics and "US soldiers dying".

I am arguing with him for the moment on *his* quote.

I'll step aside then. My bad

You know I get real pissy when the people I stood along side of die for what I see as a an invalid, inept attempt at defeating terrorism. I want to protect them all and see them all come home alive to their families but I know I can't, hence my frustration.

Carry on.

I must admit, you are the master of back-handed remarks. :thumbsup:

I don't think anyone here is happy that US troops are dying or don't want them to "come home alive to their families." Not even the ultra-right wing turds or the pansy-ass ultra left-wingers in here.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
This poster seems to want to speak in generalities about the issue, while you want to drag it back to specifics and "US soldiers dying".

I am arguing with him for the moment on *his* quote.

I'll step aside then. My bad

You know I get real pissy when the people I stood along side of die for what I see as a an invalid, inept attempt at defeating terrorism. I want to protect them all and see them all come home alive to their families but I know I can't, hence my frustration.

Carry on.

I must admit, you are the master of back-handed remarks. :thumbsup:

I don't think anyone here is happy that US troops are dying or don't want them to "come home alive to their families." Not even the ultra-right wing turds or the pansy-ass ultra left-wingers in here.

I am honest to a fault and that one was not intended as a back handed remark Nor was I trying to insinuate that bringing them home alive was reserved for the anti war crowd. I was just trying to explain why I get so goofy when posting about our troops. LOL. You gave me too much credit on that one

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: umbrella39

I'll step aside then. My bad

You know I get real pissy when the people I stood along side of die for what I see as a an invalid, inept attempt at defeating terrorism. I want to protect them all and see them all come home alive to their families but I know I can't, hence my frustration.

Carry on.

I must admit, you are the master of back-handed remarks. :thumbsup:

I don't think anyone here is happy that US troops are dying or don't want them to "come home alive to their families." Not even the ultra-right wing turds or the pansy-ass ultra left-wingers in here.

I am honest to a fault and that one was not intended as a back handed remark Nor was I trying to insinuate that bringing them home alive was reserved for the anti war crowd. I was just trying to explain why I get so goofy when posting about our troops. LOL. You gave me too much credit on that one

Ah.. my paranoia has gotten the better of me. I think I'll still keep my eye on you, just to be safe, however.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: umbrella39

I'll step aside then. My bad

You know I get real pissy when the people I stood along side of die for what I see as a an invalid, inept attempt at defeating terrorism. I want to protect them all and see them all come home alive to their families but I know I can't, hence my frustration.

Carry on.

I must admit, you are the master of back-handed remarks. :thumbsup:

I don't think anyone here is happy that US troops are dying or don't want them to "come home alive to their families." Not even the ultra-right wing turds or the pansy-ass ultra left-wingers in here.

I am honest to a fault and that one was not intended as a back handed remark Nor was I trying to insinuate that bringing them home alive was reserved for the anti war crowd. I was just trying to explain why I get so goofy when posting about our troops. LOL. You gave me too much credit on that one

Ah.. my paranoia has gotten the better of me. I think I'll still keep my eye on you, just to be safe, however.

LOL. Keeping an eye on me sounds like a good idea! Your paranoia is more than justified. :beer:

 

[KidViciou$]

oh yea, thanks to red dawn and umbrella for the compliments, i try to make as strong arguments as i possibly can because i'm thinking politics might be in my future!

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
oh yea, thanks to red dawn and umbrella for the compliments, i try to make as strong arguments as i possibly can because i'm thinking politics might be in my future!

Not to sound rude, but you certainly have the "Everything is either Black or White" mentality that seems to be required in today's politics.

 

[KidViciou$]

actually that's not true, i see many different shade, but the thing is that our laws have to be black or white

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
actually that's not true, i see many different shade, but the thing is that our laws have to be black or white

If laws must be black and white, why do we have a judical branch to "interpret" them?

 

[Starbuck1975]

i'm saying that if there was a dire need for a certain position, how can you say you support that position if youre not willing to do it if you're able bodied???

if there were no firemen, wouldn't you join the voulnteer fire company? if there were no policemen and people were experiencing unheard of crime rates, wouldn't you dawn the badge and try to get things back to normal?

Until we reach that point, it is premature and perhaps even a bit immature to criticize those who support the war but as of yet have not volunteered for military service.

If we reached a recruiting shortfall to such an extent that a draft became necessary, I would criticize those who support the war but are unwilling to serve...otherwise, this argument is nothing more then partisan nonsense.

 

[KidViciou$]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
actually that's not true, i see many different shade, but the thing is that our laws have to be black or white

If laws must be black and white, why do we have a judical branch to "interpret" them?

to determine if that line was crossed! not the percentage to which it was crossed

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: KidViciou$

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
actually that's not true, i see many different shade, but the thing is that our laws have to be black or white

If laws must be black and white, why do we have a judical branch to "interpret" them?

to determine if that line was crossed! not the percentage to which it was crossed

If laws are "black and white," then they should be easy to determine if someone's actions crossed the line or not. Why does it take years of appeals and multiple trials to convict/free someone? Why do we have sentencing trials to determine how much time a criminal must serve? I mean, guilty is guilty, right? Why should someone serve 5 years for a crime, while antoher serves 45 for the exact same thing?

I think the "percentage to which it was crossed" is very much a legitimate issue in out legal system. Black and white views tend to lead to moronic things such as this and this.

 

[cwgannon]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Stunt
Why am I not allowed to support a war, without serving in it?

I think the Iraq war in retrospect was not fully justified or planned (this is open to opinion), but there's nothing wrong with supporting war with just reasoning and not serving in the military.

Exactly. I guess everyone who supports a war should fight in it. That way, we can have half our population over in Iraq fighting! Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it.

Yes, every able-bodied person that supports a war should fight in it.

Why?

So we don't get into disastrous wars such as that in Iraq.

War is not some little fun adventure. If you're willing to support our military going to another country to blow it to pieces, you better be so god-damn convinced of the cause that you go sign yourself up the day that war is declared.

 

[KidViciou$]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: KidViciou$

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
actually that's not true, i see many different shade, but the thing is that our laws have to be black or white

If laws must be black and white, why do we have a judical branch to "interpret" them?

to determine if that line was crossed! not the percentage to which it was crossed

If laws are "black and white," then they should be easy to determine if someone's actions crossed the line or not. Why does it take years of appeals and multiple trials to convict/free someone? Why do we have sentencing trials to determine how much time a criminal must serve? I mean, guilty is guilty, right? Why should someone serve 5 years for a crime, while antoher serves 45 for the exact same thing?

I think the "percentage to which it was crossed" is very much a legitimate issue in out legal system. Black and white views tend to lead to moronic things such as this and this.

well what i meant by black and white is that the laws have to encompass and accomodate all situations. thats why they give it white or black definitions, but there are sooo many possibilities that it has to be disputed whether that line was crossed or not

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: KidViciou$

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: KidViciou$

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
actually that's not true, i see many different shade, but the thing is that our laws have to be black or white

If laws must be black and white, why do we have a judical branch to "interpret" them?

to determine if that line was crossed! not the percentage to which it was crossed

If laws are "black and white," then they should be easy to determine if someone's actions crossed the line or not. Why does it take years of appeals and multiple trials to convict/free someone? Why do we have sentencing trials to determine how much time a criminal must serve? I mean, guilty is guilty, right? Why should someone serve 5 years for a crime, while antoher serves 45 for the exact same thing?

I think the "percentage to which it was crossed" is very much a legitimate issue in out legal system. Black and white views tend to lead to moronic things such as this and this.

well what i meant by black and white is that the laws have to encompass and accomodate all situations.

Wel that's ok, but not the typical definition of "black and white."

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Man, when there was a draft the Hippies that avoided it were scum, but now that the privileged don't go why it's a different matter.

(psst.. there's not a draft going on right now..)

And trust me, if there was a draft, I'd probably treat all the draft dodgers who fled the country as scum as well.

No draft now? You're kidding?

And the Hippies didn't go to Canada, they stayed here to pollinate the flowers.

The issue is not the draft but the lack of support for a war the country is engaged in, and the attitudes toward those who don't. Trust me, if there were any way the right wing could hammer the left with a lack of supplying soldiers, they would do so in a heart beat. It's simply a fact that support for the war but a lack of willingness to sign up opens you to a potential charge of hypocrisy.

If the issue is not the draft, WTF did you bring it up for?


Yes, people who call Democrats cowards or traitors for their anti-war views are just as moronic as those who call Republicans cowards and chickenhawks for their non anti-war views. What's your point?

Well, I brought it up because one group that avoided the draft were reviled by their now younger versions who think nothing of avoiding national service. What kind of a patriot serves only when he has to? Right? So my point is that whereas you claim both phenomena to be the product of morons, the morons themselves don't see it. I mean one could almost deduce that the anger at the dodgers wasn't so much that they dodged, but that they had the courage to.