Why voice dissent of the war?

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I don't think they brought it on because Bush said, "Bring it on," but they did brought it on because Bush put our troops in a vulnerable position where we are engaged in nationbuilding. It's a good setting if you are a guerilla, where you can blend into the population, plenty of disenchanted locals to recruit from, lots of ordinance hidden in various places.

Exactly, not only did he say "Bring it on", but he did "Bring it on" too.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: TekChik
maybe a quote from John Kerry would help everyone, remembering that he's speaking of when HE was actually overseas fighting in a war:

In March 2003, Kerry Promised Not To Attack President When War Began:

?Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts ? said he will cease his complaints once the shooting starts. ?It?s what you owe the troops,? said a statement from Kerry, a Navy veteran of the Vietnam War. ?I remember being one of those guys and reading news reports from home. If America is at war, I won?t speak a word without measuring how it?ll sound to the guys doing the fighting when they?re listening to their radios in the desert.?? (Glen Johnson, ?Democrats On The Stump Plot Their War Rhetoric,? The Boston Globe, 3/11/03)

Eloquently stated, John. Too bad there was no honesty behind it.

Kerry has been viciously attacked by Bush and Cheney day after day after day. He has the right and an obligation to respond.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I don't think they brought it on because Bush said, "Bring it on," but they did brought it on because Bush put our troops in a vulnerable position where we are engaged in nationbuilding. It's a good setting if you are a guerilla, where you can blend into the population, plenty of disenchanted locals to recruit from, lots of ordinance hidden in various places.

Well, I thought first Bush tried to serve the Iraqi terrorists with his "Bring it on!". Then the Iraqi terrorists declared, "Oh snap! It's ON!" Which is a perfectly natural response after being served. At this point, I'm still waiting for the final dance-off in the streets of Baghdad.

 

[tallest1]

Ever notice that few to none people voice dissent over the war in Afganistan? Ever wonder why? I'll give a cookie to any conservative who can understand this

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I don't think they brought it on because Bush said, "Bring it on," but they did brought it on because Bush put our troops in a vulnerable position where we are engaged in nationbuilding. It's a good setting if you are a guerilla, where you can blend into the population, plenty of disenchanted locals to recruit from, lots of ordinance hidden in various places.

That's not "bringing it on"...that's bringing "taking potshots while shielded by a child inside a mosque" on. That's bringing "portraying yourself to be a civilian" on. The ones bringing "IT" are the US troops hunting these guys like rats.

 

[OffTopic1]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: cumhail
I'm just going to repeat something I said in another thread: If the colonists had been as unwilling to question their leaders and government as you seem to want all Americans to be, the Americas would still be a British colony, and those we call our nation's founding fathers would all have been branded traitors.

cumhail

I'm speaking about vocal dissent of the war. Where did I say anything about dissent in general?

Because of public opinion many of your boys came home. Many more of good US citizens might be Vietnam graves, if the majority of them believe in the slogan, ?America love it or leave it?.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I don't think they brought it on because Bush said, "Bring it on," but they did brought it on because Bush put our troops in a vulnerable position where we are engaged in nationbuilding. It's a good setting if you are a guerilla, where you can blend into the population, plenty of disenchanted locals to recruit from, lots of ordinance hidden in various places.

That's not "bringing it on"...that's bringing "taking potshots while shielded by a child inside a mosque" on. That's bringing "portraying yourself to be a civilian" on. The ones bringing "IT" are the US troops hunting these guys like rats.

That's urban warfare for you.
Whad did you think would happen? Do you think they would invite US troops to settle it in the desert with AK47 vs Abrams tank? :laugh:

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I don't think they brought it on because Bush said, "Bring it on," but they did brought it on because Bush put our troops in a vulnerable position where we are engaged in nationbuilding. It's a good setting if you are a guerilla, where you can blend into the population, plenty of disenchanted locals to recruit from, lots of ordinance hidden in various places.

That's not "bringing it on"...that's bringing "taking potshots while shielded by a child inside a mosque" on. That's bringing "portraying yourself to be a civilian" on. The ones bringing "IT" are the US troops hunting these guys like rats.

What exactly did you expect them to do? They're terrorists remember?

 

[TekChik]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: TekChik
maybe a quote from John Kerry would help everyone, remembering that he's speaking of when HE was actually overseas fighting in a war:

In March 2003, Kerry Promised Not To Attack President When War Began:

?Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts ? said he will cease his complaints once the shooting starts. ?It?s what you owe the troops,? said a statement from Kerry, a Navy veteran of the Vietnam War. ?I remember being one of those guys and reading news reports from home. If America is at war, I won?t speak a word without measuring how it?ll sound to the guys doing the fighting when they?re listening to their radios in the desert.?? (Glen Johnson, ?Democrats On The Stump Plot Their War Rhetoric,? The Boston Globe, 3/11/03)

Eloquently stated, John. Too bad there was no honesty behind it.

Kerry has been viciously attacked by Bush and Cheney day after day after day. He has the right and an obligation to respond.

right - but if he felt strongly about this, then he should be a man of principle and do what he feels is right. if, on the other hand, he does NOT feel strongly about it, then he's doing what he's done all along and just want whatever he thinks people want to hear to make them like him.

take your pick.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I don't think they brought it on because Bush said, "Bring it on," but they did brought it on because Bush put our troops in a vulnerable position where we are engaged in nationbuilding. It's a good setting if you are a guerilla, where you can blend into the population, plenty of disenchanted locals to recruit from, lots of ordinance hidden in various places.

That's not "bringing it on"...that's bringing "taking potshots while shielded by a child inside a mosque" on. That's bringing "portraying yourself to be a civilian" on. The ones bringing "IT" are the US troops hunting these guys like rats.

Sorry, but that's how terrorists "Bring it on". I know because I voice dissent against the war wich makes me practically a terrorist myself.

-edited to correct spelling

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: TekChik

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: TekChik
maybe a quote from John Kerry would help everyone, remembering that he's speaking of when HE was actually overseas fighting in a war:

In March 2003, Kerry Promised Not To Attack President When War Began:

?Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts ? said he will cease his complaints once the shooting starts. ?It?s what you owe the troops,? said a statement from Kerry, a Navy veteran of the Vietnam War. ?I remember being one of those guys and reading news reports from home. If America is at war, I won?t speak a word without measuring how it?ll sound to the guys doing the fighting when they?re listening to their radios in the desert.?? (Glen Johnson, ?Democrats On The Stump Plot Their War Rhetoric,? The Boston Globe, 3/11/03)

Eloquently stated, John. Too bad there was no honesty behind it.

Kerry has been viciously attacked by Bush and Cheney day after day after day. He has the right and an obligation to respond.

right - but if he felt strongly about this, then he should be a man of principle and do what he feels is right. if, on the other hand, he does NOT feel strongly about it, then he's doing what he's done all along and just want whatever he thinks people want to hear to make them like him.

take your pick.

I pick Kerry.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: PingSpike

If no one voices any 'dissent' no one will know about others views. How are people going to be able to make sound decisions about a presidents policies if all criticism of them is squashed? This is America jack, its our right to bitch about the president. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, so it makes sense for us to squeak like mad.

Like Red said...if it were Kerry up in office like hell you wouldn't be bitching his a$$ out. By your logic you shouldn't have a damn thing to say about Kerry at all, you should just shut up and vote for Bush this november. But you're here, bashing Kerry's $1000 haircut and playing down every Bush failing. Your partisanship is showing bigtime.

You've got a right to vote for whoever you want, and a right to bitch about those you don't want to be in office. But so does everyone else.

Excellent points...none of which have anything thing to do with this argument of dissent over the war.

Bullsh|t. There are no taboo subjects with freedom of speech. What you advocate is selective freedom of speech, which isn't freedom at all. And your selection of what should be taboo stinks of bias.

 

[SuperTool]

Also, now that the major combat operations are over, Bush's words not mine, Kerry has every right to speak out.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: tallest1
Ever notice that few to none people voice dissent over the war in Afganistan? Ever wonder why? I'll give a cookie to any conservative who can understand this

Yet had we gone into Afghanistan before 9/11 the same exact arguments would have been used against it by the same people as th ones against the Iraq war. Funny isn't it.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: tallest1
Ever notice that few to none people voice dissent over the war in Afganistan? Ever wonder why? I'll give a cookie to any conservative who can understand this

Yet had we gone into Afghanistan before 9/11 the same exact arguments would have been used against it by the same people as th ones against the Iraq war. Funny isn't it.

If the president said Afghanistan had chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons as the reason to go to war, there would be same arguments, and rightly so.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: PingSpike

If no one voices any 'dissent' no one will know about others views. How are people going to be able to make sound decisions about a presidents policies if all criticism of them is squashed? This is America jack, its our right to bitch about the president. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, so it makes sense for us to squeak like mad.

Like Red said...if it were Kerry up in office like hell you wouldn't be bitching his a$$ out. By your logic you shouldn't have a damn thing to say about Kerry at all, you should just shut up and vote for Bush this november. But you're here, bashing Kerry's $1000 haircut and playing down every Bush failing. Your partisanship is showing bigtime.

You've got a right to vote for whoever you want, and a right to bitch about those you don't want to be in office. But so does everyone else.

Excellent points...none of which have anything thing to do with this argument of dissent over the war.

Bullsh|t. There are no taboo subjects with freedom of speech. What you advocate is selective freedom of speech, which isn't freedom at all. And your selection of what should be taboo stinks of bias.

Weeeeee...let's do it just cause we can....weeeeeeeee.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: tallest1
Ever notice that few to none people voice dissent over the war in Afganistan? Ever wonder why? I'll give a cookie to any conservative who can understand this

Yet had we gone into Afghanistan before 9/11 the same exact arguments would have been used against it by the same people as th ones against the Iraq war. Funny isn't it.

If the president said Afghanistan had chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons as the reason to go to war, there would be same arguments, and rightly so.

No matter what reason the president would have gave to attack Afghanistan before 9/11 would have the same reaction as Iraq is having today. It's a no win situation when dealing with the left. All they are are a bunch of negative people that still think gore won florida and are still pissed.

Say we didn't attack Iraq, and a year later Saddam does something. What would the left's position be then. You know they would be against the president for not acting fast enough.


KK

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I don't think they brought it on because Bush said, "Bring it on," but they did brought it on because Bush put our troops in a vulnerable position where we are engaged in nationbuilding. It's a good setting if you are a guerilla, where you can blend into the population, plenty of disenchanted locals to recruit from, lots of ordinance hidden in various places.

That's not "bringing it on"...that's bringing "taking potshots while shielded by a child inside a mosque" on. That's bringing "portraying yourself to be a civilian" on. The ones bringing "IT" are the US troops hunting these guys like rats.

What exactly did you expect them to do? They're terrorists remember?

I thought they were freedom fighters. Now I'm getting confused.

 

[Shelly21]

Why voice dissent of the war? Becase "positive" comments like "Bring it on" didn't help at all.

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: tallest1
Ever notice that few to none people voice dissent over the war in Afganistan? Ever wonder why? I'll give a cookie to any conservative who can understand this

Yet had we gone into Afghanistan before 9/11 the same exact arguments would have been used against it by the same people as th ones against the Iraq war. Funny isn't it.

If the president said Afghanistan had chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons as the reason to go to war, there would be same arguments, and rightly so.

.....No matter what reason the president would have gave to attack Afghanistan before 9/11 would have the same reaction as Iraq is having today.....

KK

**Not if there were WMDs/Uranium/mobilelabs/etc there in the first place**
You see, to take a plan of action, you need reasoning, and to have reasoning, you need facts. Not some "Ooh, well he had them 12 years ago" crap

 

[KK]

Ohh, and we knew exactly what they had. They could have had massive amounts of WMD's for all we knew. Had he gambled and not acted on Iraq, and then we find out the hard way that they did have them. What do you think the democrats would have said, "oh well" ?

I do agree that the intel department was severely lacking.

KK

 

[Zephyr106]

I think what the gist of this argument is, is the idea that America should grow up and become a dictatorship. Democracy was all nice and dandy, and for the first 250 years it helped us set up our dominion. But let's face it, speaking out against the government is traitorous and something only left wing fanatics do. It's time for America to "grow up" as far as nations go and install a dictator.

Zephyr

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: tallest1
Ever notice that few to none people voice dissent over the war in Afganistan? Ever wonder why? I'll give a cookie to any conservative who can understand this

Yet had we gone into Afghanistan before 9/11 the same exact arguments would have been used against it by the same people as th ones against the Iraq war. Funny isn't it.

If the president said Afghanistan had chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons as the reason to go to war, there would be same arguments, and rightly so.

No matter what reason the president would have gave to attack Afghanistan before 9/11 would have the same reaction as Iraq is having today. It's a no win situation when dealing with the left. All they are are a bunch of negative people that still think gore won florida and are still pissed.

Say we didn't attack Iraq, and a year later Saddam does something. What would the left's position be then. You know they would be against the president for not acting fast enough.

KK

Your ability to forsee alternative realities is amazing !

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: KK
Ohh, and we knew exactly what they had. They could have had massive amounts of WMD's for all we knew. Had he gambled and not acted on Iraq, and then we find out the hard way that they did have them. What do you think the democrats would have said, "oh well" ?

I do agree that the intel department was severely lacking.

KK

There are dozens of countries with "Weapon of Mass Destruction Related Programs". We could've at least a more imminently dangerous one. Iraq could've had a nuke, chemical weapons, and who knows what but thats what the inspections were for - but nooooo, Bush didn't think the UN was capable of even that. So we decide to bomb first and ask questions later on a country that probably didn't have the slightest intention to declare war on us. Do you rest easy that 10,000 people have died because we were "unsure" and still are today?

Edit

Originally posted by: KK
Ohh, and we knew exactly what they had.

KK, count with me. 10, 11, 12 years ago! We most definitely know that North Korea, run by a crazy man is making nukes and you care more about what a run-of-the-mill dictator in the sand is doing with 12 year old material?

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: tallest1

Originally posted by: KK
Ohh, and we knew exactly what they had. They could have had massive amounts of WMD's for all we knew. Had he gambled and not acted on Iraq, and then we find out the hard way that they did have them. What do you think the democrats would have said, "oh well" ?

I do agree that the intel department was severely lacking.

KK

There are dozens of countries with "Weapon of Mass Destruction Related Programs". We could've at least a more imminently dangerous one. Iraq could've had a nuke, chemical weapons, and who knows what but thats what the inspections were for - but nooooo, Bush didn't think the UN was capable of even that. So we decide to bomb first and ask questions later on a country that probably didn't have the slightest intention to declare war on us. Do you rest easy that 10,000 people have died because we were "unsure" and still are today?

Edit

Originally posted by: KK
Ohh, and we knew exactly what they had.

KK, count with me. 10, 11, 12 years ago! We most definitely know that North Korea, run by a crazy man is making nukes and you care more about what a run-of-the-mill dictator in the sand is doing with 12 year old material?

And after 12 years of inspections they were still uncertain of what Iraq had. What's that tell you? Tells me they were pretty ineffective. It may tell you something else.

On your edit. If you didn't catch my sarcasm on us knowing exactly what they had. We didn't know, we didn't know if they had newer than 12 year old material that we didn't know about, and the inspectors once again didn't know either.

On North Korea, you think we should run in there too? I'd have to agree. What do you think the left would come up with to be against such an act?

KK