|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Sep 7th, 2004 11:57 PM | |||
| Bobo Adobo |
Quote:
 Don't be such a party pooper. You haven't "bloody well thrashed" anything. Your statments really haven't gone beyonf pretentiousness.
|
||
| Sep 7th, 2004 09:38 PM | |||
| conus |
Quote:
|
||
| Sep 7th, 2004 08:27 PM | |||
| The_Rorschach |
Brother, this is growing stale. I'm not going to knock down every strawman you toss at me. I think I've bloody well thrashed your American Empire idea, and pointed out the distinct difference between a war and conflict, and historically speaking which is which in regards to US envolvement. Thus stated, this is my last response on this topic to you as I did not enter into this for the sake of making idle conversation and will not continue ad infinitum. "What I meant by that, was that I read the news." Information without context is dangerous indeed, for it serves no purpose but the perpetuation of propaganda. If you want to gain a handle on current events, you must first garner an appreciation of history. "I didn't say anything about Madison or Jackson being old or dated." But you did infer you could not relate to them. The comment you made concerning the period of their deaths suggested you did see their efforts and beliefs as dated. Words have meaning, I suggest you say what you mean in the future if you wish to avoid similar 'misunderstandings.' "And if what your refering to is a P-3 Orion, then I do know somewhat of your assignment is." I greatly doubt that, but I will say this: Before that soldier hit the fields of fire, I was there first assisting in gathering the information what would inevitably be turned into the targets he would hit. "And frankly, from what I know, it isn't shit compared to what many soldiers have faced in places like Fallujah have had to deal with." Maybe, maybe not. Without CTs, incidents like Falluja would have been much, much worse. Standoffs could have been massacres. In any case, while I'm glad to see some respect for real citizens from civilians like yourself, you're still misguided in assuming any condescension towards any enlisted personnel. Even rear pogues supervising basketball matches for MWR are doing their part, and whether their positions are logistical, tactical, direct support or peripheral doesn't matter one iota. |
||
| Sep 7th, 2004 06:33 PM | |||
| Preechr |
http://mostliberalsenator.blogspot.com/ ...and "imperialism" isn't necessarily dependent on physically occupying a territory or enclosing it within borders. The US can impose it's will on other countries, and it does whenever necessary or even sometimes expedient. This happens regardless of any one country's national interest. To say we're not imperialistic because to be so is to be like Europe in Africa, physically there and overtly running the show, is to deny that Europe still has a high degree of represented interest in Africa. The Third World is always looking down the barrel of someone's gun. The barrels have only gotten longer. |
||
| Sep 7th, 2004 03:57 AM | |||
| Bobo Adobo | why can't we edit our posts? | ||
| Sep 7th, 2004 03:55 AM | |||
| Bobo Adobo |
"And apparantly you don't care much about history. I'm strangely curious what your interest is in exactly." What I meant by that, was that I read the news. "I apologise if the author of the Supreme Law of the Land and the Bill of Rights is too 'dated' for you." What is with these assumptions? I didn't say anything about Madison or Jackson being old or dated. I didn't even say anything about James Madison. My statement refered more to the hypocracy this country was founded on, and how a comedian is actually more insightful to me than some dead president, who happens grace the 20$ bill, that was responcible for the removal of many indians. I also didn't say what was going on in afganistan was a war. And if what your refering to is a P-3 Orion, then I do know somewhat of your assignment is. And frankly, from what I know, it isn't shit compared to what many soldiers have faced in places like Fallujah have had to deal with. 
|
||
| Sep 7th, 2004 12:18 AM | |||
| The_Rorschach |
"I really don't watch that much news." And apparantly you don't care much about history. I'm strangely curious what your interest is in exactly. "Im sorry I tend to pay more attention to people I relate to. . ." I apologise if the author of the Supreme Law of the Land and the Bill of Rights is too 'dated' for you. "i don't see how that makes me unfortunate. " No, but then you wouldn't, would you? "I never said anything about afganistan. but I bet you wouldn't have made that statement if you have had the experience of an AKM being pointed at your head." Well, at least you are consistant. Your judge of character is as debased as your knowledge of American history. Especially considering you know absolutely nothing of my rate or assignment. Granted, operating out of a P-3 observation craft over Afghanistan is a different sort of risk than the man on the field faces, but I don't think very many would say it is any less. CTs earn their stripes too. Afganistan is an egagement more comparible with our last few decades of military activity than any of the real Wars this nation has engaged in. Like Iraq, it is also a 'low intensity conflict.' |
||
| Sep 6th, 2004 02:19 PM | |||
| Anonymous |
Quote:
Let me guess. All democrats are left, and all republicans are right, so if you consistantly vote for democrats, you are a liberal, regardless of the current competition or what these people stand for. Am I following? |
||
| Sep 6th, 2004 10:22 AM | |||
| Zhukov |
Quote:
|
||
| Sep 6th, 2004 10:03 AM | |||
| EvilConserative#1 |
Quote:
I hope you where being funny/sarcastic . Look at Kerry's voting record and then say that again with a staight face . That is a triple dog dare!!!! |
||
| Sep 5th, 2004 11:08 PM | |||
| hawaiian mage |
For those still wondering about what the "liberal media" is I've found a good example. It's pretty biased. My grandmother painted the cover. |
||
| Sep 4th, 2004 01:53 PM | |||
| FS |
Quote:
|
||
| Sep 4th, 2004 12:59 PM | |||
| conus |
Quote:
|
||
| Sep 4th, 2004 12:29 PM | |||
| AChimp |
Resolution 1441 only says "Iraq must let inspectors have unrestricted access to everything," not "Let's go fight 'em!!!!" You can read it here: http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm The U.S. and the U.K. insisted that based on that resolution alone, an invasion was legitimized. Everyone else said that a second resolution needed to be passed to authorize a war, but France stated that it would veto anything that called for an immediate attack as opposed to another waiting period. Therefore the U.S. and the U.K. moved ahead anyway without a second resolution that would have brought everyone aboard. Either way, all of the countries that were in favour of waiting for more inspections to avoid a war or were skeptical of the "evidence" ended up being correct.
|
||
| Sep 4th, 2004 12:28 PM | |||
| kellychaos | If he used that resolution as justification AND garnered UN support with it, then your point would be valid. As it was a weak point, he went with the more sensationalist WMD ploy which did not work either except for a few desperate countries in need of our $$$ and support. | ||
| Sep 4th, 2004 11:46 AM | |||
| Ronnie Raygun |
Kerry is NOT fiscally conservative. Anyway, if he was what you said that would make him a libertarian....and he's nowhere near... "Q. Which countries ended up being right about the WMD? A. All of the countries that refused to fight in Iraq without UN approval." - Chimp That is so completely ignorant it's amazing. U.N. resolution 1441 blows your statement out of the water. |
||
| Sep 4th, 2004 11:27 AM | |||
| AChimp |
Quote:
Quote:
A. All of the countries that refused to fight in Iraq without UN approval. 
|
||
| Sep 4th, 2004 11:11 AM | |||
| Ronnie Raygun |
"Kerry isn't a left wing; he's centre." - chimp Kerry has the most liberal voting record in the senate....that makes him left wing.. "The fact that they're not into pissing on their allies?" - chimp We're not. We were defending ourselves and ridding the world of a tyrant. Anyone who consider this to be pissing on them is not an ally of mine. |
||
| Sep 4th, 2004 06:16 AM | |||
| Abcdxxxx |
Liberal ? Try Dan Abrams on MSNBC. He does that whole devils advocate thing but he's a big time unapologetic liberal. And toupe' wearer. Anyway, that was thee worst Bush speech ever. The media on all channels were beaming with how amazing it was, but it was just a poor State of the Union with a fancy balloon drop, and some Kerry slander. Kerry's response was equally as poor. |
||
| Sep 4th, 2004 04:59 AM | |||
| FS | This has been bothering me; Bobo Adobo here is not the Bobo Adobo from ezboard who became Les Waste here, right? | ||
| Sep 4th, 2004 03:55 AM | |||
| Bobo Adobo |
I really don't watch that much news. Chojin, you should read stuff... "Unfortunately for you, I paid more attention to Andrew Jackson and James Madison than George Carlin." Im sorry I tend to pay more attention to people I relate to, rather then dead 18th century presidents who are partly responsible for the Indian burial grounds supposly located a few miles away from where I live. i don't see how that makes me unfortunate. "Having been active duty Navy during the Afghanistan campaign, I can tell you, noone in the service called it a war. " I never said anything about afganistan. but I bet you wouldn't have made that statement if you have had the experience of an AKM being pointed at your head. |
||
| Sep 4th, 2004 03:10 AM | |||
| Anonymous | I can't think of a single liberal news broadcast that is as widely-watched, agenda-bearing, and that claims to be non-biased as FOX News. Fuck, I can't think of a single staunchly liberal news broadcast, period. | ||
| Sep 4th, 2004 03:09 AM | |||
| The_Rorschach |
Unfortunately for you, I paid more attention to Andrew Jackson and James Madison than George Carlin. More unfortunate is that I am refering to mission statements, and not dictionaries, when choosing the terminology best suited for such political discourse. There is nothing politically incorrect, nor politically correct, in calling the minor skirmishes of the past two decades 'low intensity conflicts.' Having been active duty Navy during the Afghanistan campaign, I can tell you, noone in the service called it a war. A good thing as it didn't qualify for that dubious distinction. No more than Iraq, Kosovo, Somalia, Haiti or any of the other half dozen half asses engagements our elated politicians felt so fit to meddle in. Our aims were clear, our involvement minimal, our presence evaporating as quickly as possible. As for Vietnam and Korea. . .Wars have winners, and wars have losers. American forces in Vietnam never lost on the battlefield, yet Saigon was lost. . .Why? Well, the long and the short of it was because we weren't an allied power in the war. He weren't playing for keeps. We were peace keeping. That was the official explanation for our presence, and despite general opinion, thats really what it was. The entire affair is much more complex than that, but if you can't be bothered to educate yourself on issues which still impact the current state of affairs, then really neither can I. Korea was a UN peace keeping action. The US provided the majority of the contribution made towards that aim, including propositioning the initial vote to consider armed response to what was not at all an internal conflict (indeed, we would have taken action years earlier save for a certain Soviet power exercising Veto rights) but that is neither here nor there. We were not an allied power, we were -by obligation to the UN Charter- doing what we had sworn we would should such instances arise (like sovereign powers being over-run by the influence and backing of invading imperialistically bent nations). |
||
| Sep 4th, 2004 02:43 AM | |||
| Bobo Adobo |
Quote:
But Yeah, I think as of recently it seem the amount of liberal media in ratio to concervative media is starting to even out more. "Since WW 2 the US has not entered into a war. Korea and Vietnam were 'peace keeping operations.' Somalia, Kosovo, Iraq et al. are classified as 'low intensity conflicts' and in none of the above were we awarded for our trouble with US territories or occupational provisos." War - A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. (dictionary def) Your telling me that Vietnam, Korea and Iraq dont fall under this definition? In the words of George Carlin, people tend to listen more when you dump the politically correct lingo, and tone down the syllables. |
||
| Sep 4th, 2004 02:22 AM | |||
| The_Rorschach | The 'Media' always struck me as fairly balanced. No matter whom you listen to, you get the same percentage of truth - Which would be zero, equally shared. | ||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | |||
