Kipruss

There is a disconnect from those voting for war and those dying in it. Unfortunately we don't want the reverse to be true with only ex-armed forces being in control.

Can you imagine if "people" like Blueboy were in charge? The amount of dead civilians would be horrendous while he would rejoice in the dead Americans, calling it supporting his troops. Best to keep "them" ranting on message boards like angry loathsome children and out of decision making. At worst he is a poster child for why the world hates the US. At best he is a waste of bandwidth.

Better yet, if you want to avoid scum you can add them to your ignore list - Quick link, user control panel - left hand side Buddy/ ignore list. I think i'll do that right now....

dalem

Ahh, another variant of the "Chickenhawk" line of attack, how refreshing.

Our military is controlled by civilians and it's always been that way.

-dale

dalem

What is this "disconnect" of which you speak? The vast majority of U.S. servicemen are happy and proud to carry out the missions their Government assigns them.

I can. It makes me smile.

How so?

A vile comment and one I would recommend you not repeat, assuming you get the chance here.

Support for one's troops entails supporting them in every way including their mission and the success therof, not some twisted idea of keeping them out of harm's way.

List 5 comments from Bluesman that you consider angry or loathesome - we'll discuss them. And I daresay that Bluesman at his worst is the equal of a dozen people such as yourself at your best.

Throw rock and then duck the response, eh?

-dale

chankya

Well Napoleon fought on the front lines when he still just a general. I don't know what happened when he became emperor though.

Also I'm not sure if the disadvantages of the possibility of the head of state dying offsets any advantage at all. I picked on the Romans because present systems tend to have some kind of legislative body which eventually approves war and the romans are the best match for that.

I restrict my question to whether the Roman system would make better decisions on war than our system.

I don't care about its effects on anything else (at least for the purposes of this question)

__________________
"Of all the manifestations of power, restraint impresses men the most." - Thucydides

gunnut

So put a civilian who has never fought a war in charge is bad.

Put a military man who has fought in wars in charge is bad.

What do you want?

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Kipruss

The disconnect is that the children of politicians are not the ones dying in the war. It is easier to send others to die than your own.

As to the amount of dead civilians, just think of the tens of thousands that have already died in Iraq. Is your boy sorry that this has happened? No. He would call it collateral damage or all the work of terrorists as though your bullets and bombs don't kill the innocent. How about his support for war against Iran. Will only those who wear uniforms die? For people that cause themselves Christians I sometimes wonder if you really want to be right.

Rejoice may have been the wrong word. If you think i should be banned for it then maybe you and he are the PATSIES. Able to dish it out then run and hide. Last month you lost another 80 troops. This month you have lost 45. How can you accept this? Your people are still dying in a war that most Americans (not on this board) don't want to be in.

Supporting the troops by accepting losses of 80 per month is some support. It is not twisted to only ask them to fight when it is needed.

If you want your boy to be in charge then vote for him.

Yes, I will need to temporarily remove him so I can find five comments.

First, from a reply which can still be seen -

"It comes from my dislike of you.

That, and it amuses me.

Are you sure you're in the right place, Pattycake? "

On post 23 03-24-2007, 02:09 PM 15 UK sailors captured...

"You're a deeply stupid individual. Did you know that?"

On post 30 of same link,

"Shall I go on, you pile of excrement?"

On post 91

"Or are you talking out your ass, you jumped-up arrogant know-it-all lay-strategist with a 1:300,00-scale globe and a whoooole bunch of books on geo-politics and strategy that you've no doubt read cover-to-cover (TWICE!), whilst pursuing that college degree in international relations from the advanced program at Fred's Collidge of Smart-Guy Stuff and Bait Shop?

I suspect the latter, but if you want to lay out your qualifications in this area...we're all paying the closest attention.

You dork."


Loathsome and childish. I'l get to the other comments in future when I look beyond two links.

Kipruss

Gunnut, A mixture would be nice. A government is not just the top guy. The thread started with the comment about Roman Senators, not just the Emperor.

gunnut

That is incorrect. The percentage of congressmen who have children in the armed forces is actually higher than the percentage of the general population in th armed forces.

We didn't kill them. We don't have a habit of targetting civilians. If we did, the casualty count wouldn't be in the thousands or tens of thousands like you said.

Who's my boy? Who's Dale's boy? Can you be more specific?

If we were actually aiming for innocent people who aren't running or hiding from us, we would have done a much better job at killing them than those terrorists could have ever imagined.



Only people who spew personal attacks and lies will be banned from this board. I can guarantee you that you will not be banned if you argue from reason and back up your claims with facts and not launch any personal attacks.

We accept it because we have lost nearly 3000 in one day through years of inaction.

They really don't want the war? Or are they being bombarded daily by the news media into believing this war is wrong?

We lost 305 PER DAY in WW2 and the support for it was overwhelming.

Who?

Kipruss

Gunnut: "Only people who spew personal attacks and lies will be banned from this board. I can guarantee you that you will not be banned if you argue from reason and back up your claims with facts and not launch any personal attacks."

Given the comments from Blue that I posted, does this mean you support him being banned? Or is he allowed to get away with it?

Could you provide a link on how many children/ grandchildren of politicians are in the US armed forces? I would have thought every death of one of these children would be front page news. Thanks for your help on this one.

It is a typical argument that it is the media to blame. At some point the people need to be listened to even if the majority doesn't agree with you.

I don't understand how you can absolve yourself of responsibility for the tens of thousands of Iraqi dead. Are you saying you can lose 3000+ and only kill guilty people in response? Of course your troops have killed innocent civilians. Did most of them try not to? Sure.

Iraq is not WWII. You are not facing off against two major world powers. As has been mentioned - there is no longer overwhelming American support for this war.

While i'm not a student of Christianity, I assume that it is against the killing of innocent people.

Parihaka

So can I assume you advocate the immediate withdrawl of troops from Iraq? With the ensuing bloodbath? Will America then to be to blame for those tens if not hundreds of thousands of deaths?
As an advocate of withdrawl, will you accept your share of responsibility for their deaths?

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Ray

No.

The duck hunter would shoot his neighbour!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Amled

For better or worse the Coalition forces are the only ones who are keeping the whole country from erupting into a full scale civil war, one that would probably drag the surrounding countries into the mess.
As with all civil wars, the death toll of such an event would hit the innocent worse of all, and casualties would dwarf those we now see.

__________________
When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin

Ray

There can be no withdrawal from Iraq since the consequence would be far serious than the mess that has already been manifested.

I read an article in LA Times which has compared Bush with Capt Ahab (Moby Dick).

Moby Dick, if one recalls, totally consumed Capt Ahab.

One day Ahab appeared on deck and summoned all the men. He nailed a one-ounce gold piece to the mast and announced that the gold would become the property of the first man to sight the great white whale known as Moby Dick. All the men except Starbuck and Stubb were enthusiastic about the Captain's challenge. To the two top mates, Ahab's obsession with the white whale was far beyond reason. Starbuck contended that the Captain's madness over Moby Dick was a danger to those in his charge. Ahab had already lost his leg to the whale and his mates were afraid his reckless quest would end in the loss of all their lives at the next encounter. But none of this diminished the enthusiasm of the other crewmen; they drank an oath with Ahab to the destruction of the white whale.

When they happened upon another whaling vessel, Captain Ahab inquired further about the white whale. The captain of the ship warned him not to pursue the whale, but Ahab could not be deterred.

But it is too late in the day apparently to change course.

Iraq, sadly, has consumed Bush.

xris

I'm notoffering a solution here nor am I suggesting that the USA should withdraw or should stay.

What I will say though is that the USA never should have gone in in the first place. The possible consequences of so doing were only too clear to see, as has been shown. These possible consequences would also have included the difficulties of pulling out once the US had gone in.

And so here we are - going in was folly and created a mess, but withdrawal will probably create a bigger mess with further loss of life.

However, the decision to withdraw must be taken at some point. Until the USA is out, no stable govt will be in place. The so-called democratic Iraqi govt in place at the moment will also have to go as will most of its leaders. It is tainted by association with the USA and will never be accepted, any more so that the Vichy govt in France. The USA is seen by large sections of the community as an occupying force, which is what it is.

I am a little surprised that no state has tried to charge the US with a gross violation of international law, namely the unprovoked attack on a sovereign state, similar to the way that Iraq early invaded Kuwait. But, on the other hand, am I surprised. Bringing together an international force to invade the USA to repel its aggression might prove a little difficult.

x

Bluesman

If both sides did it, it would likely be VERY peaceful. Problem is, when ONE side does that, what you get is politicians voting NOT to go to war when they should've. ANd then voting for surrender and subjugation.

Simple, yes. But very, VERY bad.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell