That is because you are sitting at home on your computer acting tough. The chickenhawks are the ones running this war.. the ones who avoided serving..
Nah, once a whore, always a whore. Remeber, this is the guy who orignally covered up the My Lai massacre.
This is more like he's trying to help position the Republican party's stance in a post Bush world.
WOW what do you know about Iran? Do you know anything about Iran? Have you even seen pictures of Iran?
MSNBC is a piece of .******. network, at best as evenly partisan as Fox News. That picture they posted of Bush is absurd
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 66
- 91
Cry me a river. I can't see anything wrong with that picture. It's actually less creepy than many of the official photos I've seen of him, in that it doesn't make him look excessively beady-eyed.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Only because Bush is totally inept at annunciating the threat and we attack a country for no good reason.
His discusting platitudes such as "They Attack our Freedom" or "Moms and Dads" in the Middle East or "People just want freedom" whine whine why can't we all just get along.... don't help either.
World War II would not have been won with this kind of sentimentalism and obfuscation.
Can't you imagine it? "The Germans yearn for freedom, just the way we all do. A tiny minority of extremists has taken over in Germany ...they do not represent anyone but themselves. We must carefully limit our anger to them."
His discusting platitudes such as "They Attack our Freedom" or "Moms and Dads" in the Middle East or "People just want freedom" whine whine why can't we all just get along.... don't help either.
World War II would not have been won with this kind of sentimentalism and obfuscation.
Can't you imagine it? "The Germans yearn for freedom, just the way we all do. A tiny minority of extremists has taken over in Germany ...they do not represent anyone but themselves. We must carefully limit our anger to them."
well, come on... who are you going to trust? a former general and secretary of state, and someone who himself was subject to torture, or someone who kinda sorta served in the national guard for a couple months?
He's a smartass searching for the latest soundbite...I'm surprised it worked on someone like you who's actually served in the armed force. Perhaps it doesn't make a difference to Al-Qaeda, but only a fool would think Al-Qaeda is the only enemy we're ever going to face again.
I can imagine YOUR approach to WWII. We would have invaded and defeated Germany, and then spent the next several months exterminating the entire German people because they were all evil beyond redemption and anything less would be showing weakness.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Nah I would have done just as it was done with honestly, indetifing the indealogy and appropriate force...... incidently, you should read Other Losses we did exterminate ~million for a more pliable nation ripe for occupation...We also disbanded the Nazi party, the source of the virulence...
Orignal Earl
Diamond Member
- Oct 27, 2005
- 8,059
- 55
- 86
I have no doubt that you would do things as you said in the phrase I bolded, I'm more commenting on our definitions of the ideology in question and the appropriate force used.
palehorse74
Would you deny that the experienced interrogators at Gimo, the ones who used the more extreme methods, were sent to Iraq on orders from Washington, to teach the newly accepted and tested methods to our people there? It seems that the evidence is pretty solid that that did happen.
Would you deny that the experienced interrogators at Gimo, the ones who used the more extreme methods, were sent to Iraq on orders from Washington, to teach the newly accepted and tested methods to our people there? It seems that the evidence is pretty solid that that did happen.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
So basically, anyone who supports the administration is a "shill" but if someone disagrees they can be said to have "bitch slaps Bush" ??
That makes a lot of sense, a nice fair and balanced approach.
Next time someone agrees with Bush why don't you just plug your ears and go "nanananana I'm not listening" would have about the same effect.
In case you forget dissent and disagreements in the way our government runs is a good thing. That is how policy is changed in ways that benefit everyone.
However, if we go around and take every disagreement and try to make political ?hay? out of it we are doing a disservice to our selves and our country.
The phenomenon of ?gotcha? politics is probably one of the biggest problems facing our country right now.
Check out the book by Lanny Davis, a member of the Clinton White House.
http://www.amazon.com/Scandal-Gotcha-Politics-Destroying-America/dp/1403974950
"Cornyn has and will always be a shill for the Admin, so I don't see what that proves. If Bush said the world was flat, Cornyn would be the first to commend him, followed by Santorum."
He is saying: Someone who supports someone else NO MATTER WHAT...
Does everything need to be explained to the tiniest detail for you? Basic comprehension skills are needed.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Shadow, the left holds anyone who disagrees with Bush up as a hero, but calls anyone who agrees with Bush a "shill"
Cornyn agrees with the President on most subjects, is that a bad thing? Was it bad when some Democrats agreed with everything Clinton said? Did you go around call those people "shills"?
The point of my post was that attacking someone solely on the basis that they don't agree with you is a BAD thing.
In the original post ayabe attacks Cornyn, without really trying to refute what the congressman said.
I suppose I should just respond to everyone who disagrees with me by say "yea, but your an idiot, so who cares what you say" (of course with a few people around here that might be a good tactic)
The congressman has a valid point, saying that American troops will be less safe if we change these rules is like telling the people on United 93 "don't attack the hijackers, you might get hurt in the process" what does it matter, they are going to KILL you anyway.
Like the Taliban is going to say to an American soldier "we were going to let you go, but now we hear that you put our brother Omar in a cold room, and for that you must die" Get real.
Now if you want to make the argument that we shouldn't change this policy on moral grounds, have at it.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 66
- 91
You'll note that Cornyn has never served in the military. Colin Powell was obviously CJCS, and Republican senators Lindsey Graham, McCain, and John Warner, each of whom opposed (and ultimately defeated, at least in the Senate Armed Services Committee) the changes Bush wanted are, respectively, an Air Force JAG colonel and member of the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, a 5-year Vietnam EPW, and a Korean war vet and former Secretary of the Navy. I'd submit they have a lot more credibility than Cornyn or Bush in this debate, and perhaps that's part of the reason they've succeeded in shooting down the changes he wanted.
What I think you and Sen Cornyn are willfully ignoring (and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming it's willful) is that our troops will not ONLY be taken hostage by terrorists. Only 3 nations in the world (including Eretria, the Marshall Islands, and a third country I can't recall) did not sign onto the Geneva conventions. It's definitely the case that many of these countries won't strictly observe them GC, but if we don't, why should they?
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Shadow, the left holds anyone who disagrees with Bush up as a hero, but calls anyone who agrees with Bush a "shill"
Cornyn agrees with the President on most subjects, is that a bad thing? Was it bad when some Democrats agreed with everything Clinton said? Did you go around call those people "shills"?
The point of my post was that attacking someone solely on the basis that they don't agree with you is a BAD thing.
In the original post ayabe attacks Cornyn, without really trying to refute what the congressman said.
I suppose I should just respond to everyone who disagrees with me by say "yea, but your an idiot, so who cares what you say" (of course with a few people around here that might be a good tactic)
The congressman has a valid point, saying that American troops will be less safe if we change these rules is like telling the people on United 93 "don't attack the hijackers, you might get hurt in the process" what does it matter, they are going to KILL you anyway.
Like the Taliban is going to say to an American soldier "we were going to let you go, but now we hear that you put our brother Omar in a cold room, and for that you must die" Get real.
Now if you want to make the argument that we shouldn't change this policy on moral grounds, have at it.
Someone that agrees with everything the president says shows that they are unable to think independently.. no one has pinpoint similar views as someone else...
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Shadow, the left holds anyone who disagrees with Bush up as a hero, but calls anyone who agrees with Bush a "shill"
Cornyn agrees with the President on most subjects, is that a bad thing? Was it bad when some Democrats agreed with everything Clinton said? Did you go around call those people "shills"?
The point of my post was that attacking someone solely on the basis that they don't agree with you is a BAD thing.
In the original post ayabe attacks Cornyn, without really trying to refute what the congressman said.
I suppose I should just respond to everyone who disagrees with me by say "yea, but your an idiot, so who cares what you say" (of course with a few people around here that might be a good tactic)
The congressman has a valid point, saying that American troops will be less safe if we change these rules is like telling the people on United 93 "don't attack the hijackers, you might get hurt in the process" what does it matter, they are going to KILL you anyway.
Like the Taliban is going to say to an American soldier "we were going to let you go, but now we hear that you put our brother Omar in a cold room, and for that you must die" Get real.
Now if you want to make the argument that we shouldn't change this policy on moral grounds, have at it.
Don't make assumptions about me, Cornyn's stance is well documented, it has nothing to left or right, he is a yes man for Bush. Real repubs like Lindsey Graham are breaking with the admin because they are WRONG.
It should also be noted that while the JAG office agrees with Bush on this matter, according to Graham, they were sequestered late into the evening on Wednesday and forced to sign in agreement with the Admin. Now tell me, who's the shill?
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Shadow, the left holds anyone who disagrees with Bush up as a hero, but calls anyone who agrees with Bush a "shill"
Cornyn agrees with the President on most subjects, is that a bad thing? Was it bad when some Democrats agreed with everything Clinton said? Did you go around call those people "shills"?
The point of my post was that attacking someone solely on the basis that they don't agree with you is a BAD thing.
In the original post ayabe attacks Cornyn, without really trying to refute what the congressman said.
I suppose I should just respond to everyone who disagrees with me by say "yea, but your an idiot, so who cares what you say" (of course with a few people around here that might be a good tactic)
The congressman has a valid point, saying that American troops will be less safe if we change these rules is like telling the people on United 93 "don't attack the hijackers, you might get hurt in the process" what does it matter, they are going to KILL you anyway.
Like the Taliban is going to say to an American soldier "we were going to let you go, but now we hear that you put our brother Omar in a cold room, and for that you must die" Get real.
Now if you want to make the argument that we shouldn't change this policy on moral grounds, have at it.
Don't make assumptions about me, Cornyn's stance is well documented, it has nothing to left or right, he is a yes man for Bush. Real repubs like Lindsey Graham are breaking with the admin because they are WRONG.
It should also be noted that while the JAG office agrees with Bush on this matter, according to Graham, they were sequestered late into the evening on Wednesday and forced to sign in agreement with the Admin. Now tell me, who's the shill?
does all of that make you a Michael Moore shill? or perhaps a Kennedy shill? a Clinton shill?
which is it? whose shill are you?! After all, according to your own distorted logic, you must be someone's shill! it's apparaently impossible to agree with a lot of statements and beliefs made or held by one politician without being considered said politician's shill... right?
ya... duh.
Hilarious to watch you lefties now hold Powell up as an authority figure, after spending the last 3 years or so bashing his ass for giving all that inaccurate information at his infamous UN speech.
Hypocrisy at its finest.
Hypocrisy at its finest.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 66
- 91
This isn't really hypocrisy IMO. As far as I'm concerned Powell tried in vain to be the conscience of the Bush administration, but sold out along the way, and ultimately left to be replaced by yes-(wo)man Rice. Powell was clearly not happy with his own testimony to the UN, and I frankly DO fault him for going ahead with it anyway.
That doesn't make him wrong to the extent he is speaking out to protect American troops, any more than McCain (who of all people knows the realities of EPW treatment), Lindsey Graham (probably the most knowledgeable mind in Congress in terms of the law of war) or John Warner (a decorated Korean war vet and former SecNavy) are wrong. Fortunately wiser minds have prevailed, and the Senate Armed Services Committee has voted to recommend NOT enacting the White House's ill-advised policy.
What is your opinion on the actual issue at hand, or are you just here to troll?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter