Politics & The War (----Not Very G Rated-----)

[crappie007]

Freedom of speech --to call the president cowardly
and freedom of speech --to say how dare you, you have
not earned that right. Both in the end are Freedom of speech.

[cavdad45]

Name calling is not freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is paid for in blood, it is not free.

Freedom without responsibility is anarchy. Calling our nation's leaders cowards only helps the cause of our enemy, that is not responsible. It's un-American.

[hookorcrook]

and let a cowardly bully talk us into war.

By the way, you do not have the right to call the President of the United States a coward. How dare you! Spoken by an individual who has never served in the Armed Forces of the United States. Never made decisions that would affect the lives of others. Until you can show a little courage under fire, you have no right to Monday morning, armchair quarterbacking our military or foreign policy. You haven't earned it.

And you have no right whatsoever to call anyone a coward until you have passed the test of courage.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof]abridging the freedom of speech[/i], or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Actually he does have the right. It's called the Bill of Rights. Or the First Ammendment to the Constitution. #1. And he has it simply by virtue of being an American. If serving in the military is the barometer of whether you can express yourself about the goverment or foreign policy, then most Americans would have to stay mute.

[crappie007]

Its sickening to read(or hear) and makes one's blood boil.
Its makes others happy and jump for joy. It is Americans
practicing their right to freedom of speech. It is our right
to agree or disagree, it is freedom of speech.

[iPodrodder]

and let a cowardly bully talk us into war.

By the way, you do not have the right to call the President of the United States a coward. How dare you! Spoken by an individual who has never served in the Armed Forces of the United States. Never made decisions that would affect the lives of others. Until you can show a little courage under fire, you have no right to Monday morning, armchair quarterbacking our military or foreign policy. You haven't earned it.

And you have no right whatsoever to call anyone a coward until you have passed the test of courage.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof]abridging the freedom of speech[/i], or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Actually he does have the right. It's called the Bill of Rights. Or the First Ammendment to the Constitution. #1. And he has it simply by virtue of being an American. If serving in the military is the barometer of whether you can express yourself about the goverment or foreign policy, then most Americans would have to stay mute.

Well I'm going to nitpick here. It says CONGRESS shall make no law restricting. Not other people who don't like people who complain then sit on the couch and don't do anything. That's called hyprocrisy.

What we're doing here is calling out the hyprocrites where calling hypocrites out is due. IN CONCLUSION, NO ONE LIKES A HYPROCRITE.

Hyprocrite, hyprocrite, hyprocrite. Have I said that enough?

[crappie007]

Being a Hypocrite in my opinion, is a sad way to live ones life.
To pretend to be what he or she is not, or to pretend to be better
than he or she really is. I live by many mottos' in my life, one
is Stand for somthing or you will fall for anything.

[Fisherman_max]

in my opinion, and the opinion of others as well. no person has the right to sit behind a computer screen and preach how bad our leader is running our country maybe some things he has done have been questionable but he is still a great leader. i have read this whole thread and what some people have said sickens me. bassakwards amen to everything you have said, and cavdad45 i hope and prey that your son makes it home safe and i wish blessing apon your family, your son made the ultimate sacrifice, he chose a life or death situation for his country over playing colledge ball (which almost every person hopes and dreams they could do), and for that he is in my eyes a great person.

btw: most of the media is so far from the truth that one can almost not trust anything they say...this is not quite on topic but has anybody ever heard anything on the news or a forum that you believe but the next day u find it not to be true, this is more of a tabloid thing but i once heard that steve-o from the show jackass overdosed on cocaine and the next day i found out it was all a joke. to you catch my drift?


and for all those people who will probably come back to what i say in a negative way i am allready prepared with to play a sad song with the old violin

[hookorcrook]

By the way, you do not have the right to call the President of the United States a coward. How dare you! Spoken by an individual who has never served in the Armed Forces of the United States. Never made decisions that would affect the lives of others. Until you can show a little courage under fire, you have no right to Monday morning, armchair quarterbacking our military or foreign policy. You haven't earned it.

And you have no right whatsoever to call anyone a coward until you have passed the test of courage.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof]abridging the freedom of speech[/i], or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Actually he does have the right. It's called the Bill of Rights. Or the First Ammendment to the Constitution. #1. And he has it simply by virtue of being an American. If serving in the military is the barometer of whether you can express yourself about the goverment or foreign policy, then most Americans would have to stay mute.

Well I'm going to nitpick here. It says CONGRESS shall make no law restricting. Not other people who don't like people who complain then sit on the couch and don't do anything. That's called hyprocrisy.

What we're doing here is calling out the hyprocrites where calling hypocrites out is due. IN CONCLUSION, NO ONE LIKES A HYPROCRITE.

Hyprocrite, hyprocrite, hyprocrite. Have I said that enough?

It says "Congress shall make no law respecting..." for a reason. If you understand the Constitution and The Bill of Rights then you would understand what that means. Maybe someone else has the patience(time) to explain to you what that means. Or you could take a Poly Sci class or a U.S. Government class.

As far as hypocrisy goes, I don't see anyone being a hypocrite. Maybe I missed something, but I've read all these posts. A hypocrite is someone who professes one thing and then does the exact opposite. I don't see anybody doing that here. If someone wants to, as you describe, "sit on a couch and complain and do nothing" that doesn't make him a hypocrite, just a complainer.

But I don't see any complainers either. I have been (seeing)reading a lot of really interesting facts and opinions from a lot of very passionate people. It's just good American discourse.

[A9]

in my opinion, and the opinion of others as well. no person has the right to sit behind a computer screen and preach how bad our leader is running our country maybe some things he has done have been questionable but he is still a great leader. i have read this whole thread and what some people have said sickens me. bassakwards amen to everything you have said, and cavdad45 i hope and prey that your son makes it home safe and i wish blessing apon your family, your son made the ultimate sacrifice, he chose a life or death situation for his country over playing colledge ball (which almost every person hopes and dreams they could do), and for that he is in my eyes a great person.

btw: most of the media is so far from the truth that one can almost not trust anything they say...this is not quite on topic but has anybody ever heard anything on the news or a forum that you believe but the next day u find it not to be true, this is more of a tabloid thing but i once heard that steve-o from the show jackass overdosed on cocaine and the next day i found out it was all a joke. to you catch my drift?


and for all those people who will probably come back to what i say in a negative way i am allready prepared with to play a sad song with the old violin

We have the right to talk about whatever we want. Freedom of speech now applies to internet forums as well. If you don't like what is said, don't read it. Simple as that.

We can criticize whomever we want if thats what we decide to do. No one is forcing you to sit down at some speech and making you listen to someone talk, and no one here is making you read every post...If you don't like whats said, don't read it.

And I'm glad you figured out that the media is a tainted source of information. It's not always right but then again it's not always wrong, so at your discourse, pick what you want to believe and what you don't.

[iPodrodder]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof]abridging the freedom of speech[/i], or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Actually he does have the right. It's called the Bill of Rights. Or the First Ammendment to the Constitution. #1. And he has it simply by virtue of being an American. If serving in the military is the barometer of whether you can express yourself about the goverment or foreign policy, then most Americans would have to stay mute.

Well I'm going to nitpick here. It says CONGRESS shall make no law restricting. Not other people who don't like people who complain then sit on the couch and don't do anything. That's called hyprocrisy.

What we're doing here is calling out the hyprocrites where calling hypocrites out is due. IN CONCLUSION, NO ONE LIKES A HYPROCRITE.

Hyprocrite, hyprocrite, hyprocrite. Have I said that enough?

It says "Congress shall make no law respecting..." for a reason. If you understand the Constitution and The Bill of Rights then you would understand what that means. Maybe someone else has the patience(time) to explain to you what that means. Or you could take a Poly Sci class or a U.S. Government class.

As far as hypocrisy goes, I don't see anyone being a hypocrite. Maybe I missed something, but I've read all these posts. A hypocrite is someone who professes one thing and then does the exact opposite. I don't see anybody doing that here. If someone wants to, as you describe, "sit on a couch and complain and do nothing" that doesn't make him a hypocrite, just a complainer.

But I don't see any complainers either. I have been (seeing)reading a lot of really interesting facts and opinions from a lot of very passionate people. It's just good American discourse.

I understand the Constitution. Maybe you misinterpreted what I was saying. I meant, Congress and the feds can't do anything about it (us speaking our minds). But people can lay down a set of unwritten rules saying don't be a hyprocrite/complainer. I guess hyprocrite wasn't the best word. I'm not going to name names and start a flame war, but I do see a couple complainers on this board.

[cavdad45]

I'll play devil's advocate here:

Say "bomb" at an airport...
Say "Columbine" at a high school...
Say the "n" word as a public official...
Say "the Presisent must die" on the White House switchboard...
Call your boss "a crook"...
Say "going postal" at work...
Say "life begins at conception" on a public street in front of an abortion clinic...
Say "God" in school if you are a teacher...
Thank God in your commencement address from high school...

Then say it was your first amendment right.

My issue over calling the President a coward was based on what is right as a man, not inferring his Constitutional guarantees that all Americans have because a select few are willing to protect them for all of us. It is wrong to label someone else's character when you yourself haven't been proved in that area, especially in the area of courage and honor. Secondly, if you don't like the man, the office demands a certain level of respect.

[Mr. Magler]

Yikes. What I said was completely misinterpreted. I was calling SUDDAM HUSSEIN a cowardly bully that talked our President into war. It's somewhat ironic that you would associate that term with our President though. Sorry for the confusion.

As far as a plan for the War On Terror....I already gave my opinion of a better plan. An international coalition of special forces and sound intelligence weeding out the terrorist sects throughout the middle east, not just in Iraq and Afghanistan. Cavdad, you really did some selective reading there. Please re-read what I previously wrote. I read everything that you've had to say, so please have the courtesy to do the same for a fellow American.

[cavdad45]

Yikes. What I said was completely misinterpreted. I was calling SUDDAM HUSSEIN a cowardly bully that talked our President into war. It's somewhat ironic that you would associate that term with our President though. Sorry for the confusion.

As far as a plan for the War On Terror....I already gave my opinion of a better plan. An international coalition of special forces and sound intelligence weeding out the terrorist sects throughout the middle east, not just in Iraq and Afghanistan. Cavdad, you really did some selective reading there. Please re-read what I previously wrote. I read everything that you've had to say, so please have the courtesy to do the same for a fellow American.

My bad. I apologize for misinterpreting what I read into your statements. I was completely blindsided when I thought you called the President a coward, I am sorry.

[Mr. Magler]

Thanks, Cavdad that's very nice of you. But no need to apologize. It was an honest misinterpretation.

As much I disagree with the President on many issues, I think he truly believes that he is doing what's best for his country. It's my personal opinion that his efforts are very misguided, and poorly thought out - but that doesn't make him a coward.

[littleriver]

A very nice recovery Mr. Magler.

[lskiles]

It hasn't been covered anywhere but in the Olympia paper (at least that I can find) but things are almost going "hot" in the Olympia Port district.

Fort lewis materials people have been running equipment into the base via the port of olympia and the local surrender monkeys have been picketing pretty much every time a shipment comes through.


A shipment went through yesterday and it got kind of ugly with protestors physically blocking the routes (it's called civil disobedience). Apparently rocks were thrown and it was really nasty.

I think the thing that pisses me off about those situations, is the fact the protesters are hurting no one but the joe's that rely on that equipment.

If they want to protest...fine do so in an orderly manner...don't block the equipment from getting to the people that need it fixed or need it period!

One of my favorite lines from the Olympian...

Jake Waluconis said he was choked with his own bandanna and was punched in the gut with a baton as he attempted to stop a convoy. A protester who identified himself as Emiliano Guevara had a bloody lip.

"The cops were beating people up for no reason," he said.

Allie Van Nostran, 18, an Evergreen State College freshman, said after an earlier confrontation, "People were shoved back to the sidewalk. I was shoved across my collarbone with a billy club."

...not sure exactly what they expected to happen when they decided to try and physically stop a military convoy. I am sure if they had a clue what happens in Iraq when someone tries to stop a convoy they wouldn't be so willing to step in front of those vehicles.


Chad

Since Marc was offended by the term Surrender Monkey in the veteran thread I have moved here to reply to this post.

I am not a veteran. I lost my leg working as a cowboy in Montana before I was old enough to sign-up. Myself and everyone I knew in the late 60s early 70s wanted to go to Vietnam and fight the commies. I would see the protests on TV and wonder where all these pin-heads were because I never saw one except on TV.

The difference between these protestors in Olympia (and most of them these days) and those in the past (e.g. the followers of Martin Luther King, Jr.) is that present day protestors who commit “civil disobedience” get angry if they get arrested, but the whole point of what they did in the civil-rights movement and the war protests in the 60s and 70s was to GET arrested. The police and other government agents are suppose to treat them “nice” and wait for the news cameras then let them go home and brag about what they did for the cause.

Some of these surrender monkeys need to watch old news footage of the protests of the 50s, 60s and 70s. That was brutal.

I suppose if they would night-stick ‘em, tear-gas ‘em and throw ‘em in the cooler for a couple of days we have more law suits than we could shake a stick at.

[leahcim_dahc]

I suppose if they would night-stick ‘em, tear-gas ‘em and throw ‘em in the cooler for a couple of days we have more law suits than we could shake a stick at.

I could just about guarantee it.


Chad

[littleriver]

Just to comment on a few notions that keep coming up on these war threads. And most of the comments on this thread have been very good. I tend to agree with them, but contributors to this thread must discuss this war with others and I'm just adding a few thoughts to maybe give you some ideas and concepts that might help in those discussions.

No war is fought against weapons (WMD or otherwise). No war is fought against tactics (i.e., terror or kamakaze raids or carpet bomging. or whatever), and this is the only point on which I disagree with the president... he has called it a war on terror and it's not... War is something that exists between nations, cultures, and ideologies. This war is being fought against islamo-fascist aggression. It's a war against an agressive and war like ideology. We've fought most wars against ideologies but those ideologies were usually draped in a wrapper that we identified more readily as a nation. Hence we still say we fought WWII against the Germans but it was really against an ideology (the Third Reich.. Nazi ism) that had taken control of that nation. During the time of WWII 27% of the US population was of German decent. To say we were fighting the germans would have almost been like saying we were fighting a war against one quarter of our own citizens. Some are confused by the fact that we don't seem to be able to identify a real country that we are at war against. This should not be an issue. islamo-fascism is a well defined ideology that has been around for a long, long time. It started in Medina and Mecca, which are located in a nation we now call Saudi Arabia, but this ideology has never really been "nation bound". It's always been able to exist with or without the context of a nation.

And our current war is only going to be over when the islamo-fascists capitulate. Individual combat units may have missions and they may accomplish those missions with great fanfare and success, but the war isn't over until the islamo-fascists capitulate. We can pull our troops out of iraq and then argue that it helped or hindered the campaign but the war isn't over until the islamo-fascists capitulate. It's really that simple. If we hadn't gone into iraq we would still be at war because the islamo fascists would not have capitulated. If we hadn't gone into kuwait or afghanistan we would still be at war because the islamo-fascists would not have captitulated. There is absolutely no way to end this war except to force the islamo-fascists to capitulate. Even if we surrender the war won't be over because the islamo-fascists will just start fighting between themselves and they will become our suzerains and we will just be fighting new wars but they will be in the servitude of one islamo-fascist sect against another. So I will repeat. There is no way to end this war except to make the islamo-fascists capitulate. That is the only option. Muhammed was actually not well liked in Mecca when he came up with his "Islamo" doctrine as an illiterate teenager. Still, he ultimately became master of the city, but not by charm and political campaign, rather it was by commanding an army that put Mecca under siege. He died a few years after the city had been invested and the ideology of islam was promulgated thereafter by family and friends. Mohammed led armies into battle and cut off the heads of his enemies. The islamo-fascist imams lead armies into battle and cut off the heads of their enemies because they want to be like mohammed. islam is truly the religion of war. It's all in the history books. History books written, for the most part, by muslims.

So the war against the islamo-fascists has been going on for a very long time. If you want to get really technical it could be argued that it's been going on since the battle of Badr in the early 7th century. But what we are dealing with now really started in the years following WWI. The treaty of Versaiile essentially eliminated the position of Caliph in the Islamic world and caused the Ottoman Empire to be divided up into the nations we now identify as Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc. None of those nations existed prior to WWI. Before Versaille the entire middle east as we now know it was just part and parcel of the ottoman empire and we had to live with it. After versaille the islamo fascists weeped and plotted and nashed their teeth but with the defeat of the islamic ottomans they lost their military might. Gradually through the 30's and the 40's and into the 50s they learned the tactics of terror and started implementing those tactics in the arab world.

Most would be surprised to learn that over 10,000 people have been killed by islamo fascist terrorism in the little nation of Morrocco since WWII. Morrocco. where the heck is morrocco you might ask?? A fair question but all the historical haunts of the islamic religion have been victimized by islamo-fascist terror tactics over the last half century. I think the greatest president Egypt has ever had was Anwar Sadat. He was gunned down by islamo-fascists who were marching in the honor guard at a review he was overseeing. The huge expansion of "terror in the name of islam" that we have seen over the last couple of decades has been caused in great part by our nation's failed energy policy. We just keep becoming more and more dependent on oil from islamic nations and that is the source of money to fund the terrorism. Some pundits say the current conflict started in the 70s when the islamo-fascists hijacked the cruise ship Achille Lauro (or something like that) and pushed that klinghoffer guy off the deck and into the water to drown. But I think that event simply marked a point in time where the money was finally starting to flow in enough volume that more expensive campaigns aimed at a world audience could be pursued.

In other words, I think this war against islamo-fascism has been going on since the end of WWI but the aggressors didn't really get good at what they were doing until a couple of decades ago. Good enough at the terror stuff that they could get our attention. They've definitely got our attention now.





Anyways, back to the war stuff. We fought a cold war that lasted many decades. When I was serving my country (as feeble an effort as it was) we were at war against a Soviet empire that had been expanding in an uninterrupted fashion since the october revolution in 1917. Our military engaged in many, many campaigns during that war. We had many "mission accomplished" banners to celebrate during the post WWII portion of this war. There was much talk of WMD's, except we didn't call them WMD's, but the war didn't end until the soviets capitulated and that happy event came when Pres. Reagan met Gorbachev in iceland in the late 80's. The final collapse didn't come until a few years later when Bush 39 was in office but the cold war really ended when gorbachev capitulated at that conference.


Those who get hung up on WMD's and "terror" and "mission accomplished" banners and all these other issues that keep coming up simply don't understand what war is. If you think you have this problem then go buy Paul K. Davis's book "100 decisive battles". It's the best book on military history I've ever read and I've read literally hundred's of them. It's pretty much totally non-political. It just gets to the heart and the meat of 100 of the more interesting and meaningful battles that have been fought in the history of our species. This war stuff has been going on for a long, long time. And once you read the narrative of a few dozen of them you start to see some patterns. Once you think you understand those patterns then get back on this thread and we'll pick up the conversation from that perspective.

[Mr. Magler]

... War is something that exists between nations, cultures, and ideologies. This war is being fought against islamo-fascist aggression. It's a war against an agressive and war like ideology.

Exactly right, littleriver. We are not fighting a nation, we are fighting a belief. We are not going to change anyone's religious beliefs, and nor should we be trying to. We'll never kill off all terrorists. But through sound intelligence working in conjunction with highly trained special forces along with secure ports and borders, I believe we can greatly reduce the risk of being attacked by terrorists.

Unfortunately, this Administration has added on one more problem - rebuilding someone else's country. Call me selfish, but I care much more about my Country than someone else's State in the Middle East. But now we have no choice but to stay and rebuild a country with resources we don't even have. Meanwhile we are going further into debt and losing ground on real problems at home like the energy crisis, health care, immigration, not to mention national security...

I know our Country will get through this tough time, but we have to learn from the error of our ways with this invasion of Iraq. The first step to recovery is to first admit our mistakes, then we can learn from them and become stronger. We are the greatest country on Earth, and we will eventually be back stronger than ever.

Whether we're Republicans, Democrats, or Independents.....we are all Americans.

THANK YOU TO ALL VETERANS FOR GIVING ME THE FREEDOMS I ENJOY EVERYDAY!

[littleriver]

I think your point is very well thought out Mr. Magler.

I can't really disagree with it.

I debate the "War in Iraq" stuff all the time on various blogs. Mostly I'm discussing the issue with fanatics who see our nation as the villian and everyone else on the planet as being oppressed by our imperialist administration. So, in light of this experience base, I find your point of view refreshing even though it's not something I would put myself down as being in total agreement with.

I do agree with you most wholeheartedly though when you say that "We'll never kill off all the terrorists".

And this is where I am struggling in terms of how to resolve the issue. I feel very comfortable now in regard to how I have defined the issue (it took a lot of time and a lot of history books to get to that point though) but I still don't have the answer in regards to how to resolve it successfully. However, in my mind, defining the problem correctly is always the most important first step in resolving any problem.

And to make things even more interesting I'll even take your "We'll never kill off all the terrorists" stuff one step further.

In order to win this battle we are going to need to force islamo-fascist leadership to "capitulate". That's the only thing I know for sure and the only point on which I will never compromise because this (based on thousands of years of human experience with war) is simply what has to be done to get this war over with and to return to what we tend to view as a state of peace.

OK... so.. who the heck is this leadership and where do we go to sign the papers of "capitulation"????

And I think this is the real quandry. Personally, I don't know. Killing Bin Laden doesn't end the war because he will just be replaced by another whacko and the war will go on. ... and on.. and on... and on...... seems the islamo-fascists have created the perfect "war machine". A war machine that can never be stopped because it can continue endlessly because there is never, ever any phone number the opponent (e.g., us) can call for to set up a meeting to discuss the terms of surrender.

In this situation the only way to gain a state of capitulation may be to simply start conquering islamic nations (we've already invaded and occupied 2 of them) and gradually convert everyone to christianity. As the ideological basis for these conversions we might go back to the last days of the Roman Empire. In the 6th century most of what we now refer to as the Middle east (i.e. Iran, Syria, lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, etc.) were part and parcel of the Roman Empire and inhabited by nestorian Christians. In the 7th century islam created itself in Mecca (Mecca is located in what we now refer to as Saudi Arabia) and started expanding in every direction. Expansion was military in nature and the main battle that caused the nestorian christians to capitulate featured a faceoff between 5,000 islamic soldiers and over 100,000 nestorians. The islamic side ended up winning because they were more determined and they fought to the death because their leaders told them there were 50 virgins waiting for them in heaven.

With this knowledge in hand we could start a marketing campaign aimed at convincing everyone that they were all really oppressed and conquered nestorian christians and that it was time for reparations. That it's time to go back to their real roots and shed the tyranny of islam.... blah, blah, blah...... In this scenario there's no need to negotiate the terms of surrender because ultimately there are no muslims and the problem goes away. This was how the great Mongol General Ked Boga resolved the issue of a fanatical islamic sect that called itself the "assassins" (Yes.. this sect was where the english word for assassin originated). In the year 1256 all of the sect (the assassins) lived in the mountains that now separate iran and iraq. Ked Boga advanced his army to the border of Iraq and sent small detachments into the mountains to hunt down and kill every member of the sect.. one by one.......... If we conquer and then occupy muslim nations one by one we could ultimately win this war without forcing a formal capitulation. As the nations are occupied we simply encourage each citizen to convert to some other religion (we could call it the ABI campaign.. ABI standing for "Anything But Islam"). Once everyone is converted our problems are over. Oh.. I guess I should mention.... there will be some who won't convert... what do you do with them??? Well, for the answer to that question you need to talk to Ked Boga.


bottom line though, it's tough to fight a war against something that only seems to exist when it shows up in the form of a fanatic with C4 explosives strapped around his/her waist.