bodypilot90 0 #1 March 21, 2003 I was called war hungry a few days ago and now i was called a racist. I depise war. I would do anything I could to prevent it. However, there are times when you must defend your nation. Our sons and daughters have been put in harms way. This is something no president takes lightly. If you believe GW is on a power trip, oil hungry, ect. I honestly do not believe you know a lot about the history of the USA. We are not going in as invaders but as liberators. CNN showed some Iraqi's giving thumbs up and cheering as the 7th Cav rolled by. I wonder if the french felt that way as Germany rolled in during WW2. If you see the targets we are bombing and how we are working to do EVERY thing possible to prevent unnessarry deaths, even among the ranks of the Iraqi military. This to me does not seem like a blood thirsty attack to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #2 March 21, 2003 Bill, The folks that blasted you represent only 30% of the American population according to the latest polls. You shouldn't let it bother you as it seems you are the one that is more in touch with mainstream America. Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #3 March 21, 2003 QuoteThis to me does not seem like a blood thirsty attack to me. what is your definition of bloodthirsty then? QuoteI was called war hungry a few days ago and now i was called a racist. go figure. QuoteWe are not going in as invaders but as liberators. yeah, i heard one of them cruise missles had the name "liberator" stamped on the side of it. QuoteCNN showed some Iraqi's giving thumbs up and cheering as the 7th Cav rolled by. get in touch with reality. that was a "selective" length of film. what it didn't show was the bediwens shaking their heads in shock at what they saw when the 7th cal. rolling by at 40 mph. with choppers flying at 50' agl just ahead of them.--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jessica 0 #4 March 21, 2003 Quote I was called war hungry a few days ago and now i was called a racist. Hmm, well, maybe that's the flip side of being called un-American for wishing we hadn't attacked. Suck it up! Quote You shouldn't let it bother you as it seems you are the one that is more in touch with mainstream America. And mainstream America's what we should all strive to emulate! Mainstream America always makes the best choices, it's clear!Skydiving is for cool people only Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #5 March 21, 2003 Quotewhat is your definition of bloodthirsty then? *bump* waiting... QuoteI depise war this is evident in your expressed views. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,167 #6 March 21, 2003 Richard, I'm not sure I'd classify this attack as bloodthirsty, either. Dresden was bloodthirsty. I think it's really unfortunate we're here, and seriously fucked up that we couldn't see any other alternatives to destroying each other. As far as being war hungry, it's very easy to interpret repeated posts extolling the virtues of kicking butt, of blanket approval of the GWB approach, of the total depravity of the French, of the lack of necessity of understanding the Middle East as being an indication of being war hungry. Sometimes people think their position is stronger if it emphasizes the weakness of another. But it's not -- your strength exists, and is not made stronger by dissing someone else. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zelda 0 #7 March 21, 2003 It's interesting to me that the current reasoning for attacking Iraq is so the Iraqi people can be liberated. At any given time, there are dozens of tyrannical dicators running slipshod over the the basic human rights of their people, but we rarely step in to "liberate" them. I'm not going to get in on the debate of whether or not we should be over there, but for the love of god, let's not kid ourselves into believing that that it's all about helping the poor, oppressed Iraqi people when we have such a spotty history on that front! -zelda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #8 March 21, 2003 clucks like a chicken... walks like a chicken..... ...? _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kinaa 0 #9 March 21, 2003 QuoteHowever, there are times when you must defend your nation. Yes there is that time. But is that what you do in Iraq? QuoteWe are not going in as invaders but as liberators.If you give someone freedom, or set them free, then you should not expect something in return. Like you expect from France. If you want something in return than you not liberating them. It is just the opposite. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,167 #10 March 21, 2003 QuoteIf you give someone freedom, or set them free, then you should not expect something in return. Like you expect from France. If you want something in return than you not liberating them. Good point, and well stated. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DivaSkyChick 0 #11 March 21, 2003 YES. Thank you for speaking my mind. M "It's interesting to me that the current reasoning for attacking Iraq is so the Iraqi people can be liberated. At any given time, there are dozens of tyrannical dicators running slipshod over the the basic human rights of their people, but we rarely step in to "liberate" them. I'm not going to get in on the debate of whether or not we should be over there, but for the love of god, let's not kid ourselves into believing that that it's all about helping the poor, oppressed Iraqi people when we have such a spotty history on that front! -zelda" --- www.facebook.com/mandyhamptonfitch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #12 March 21, 2003 QuoteIt's interesting to me that the current reasoning for attacking Iraq is so the Iraqi people can be liberated. The main stated reason behind this butt-kicking is to protect our national security by removing Saddam Hussein from office. Liberation of the people is a side benefit. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #13 March 21, 2003 QuoteSometimes people think their position is stronger if it emphasizes the weakness of another. But it's not -- your strength exists, and is not made stronger by dissing someone else. your right. my apologies. no excuses. although i could think of a dozen.--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zelda 0 #14 March 21, 2003 QuoteThe main stated reason behind this butt-kicking is to protect our national security by removing Saddam Hussein from office. Liberation of the people is a side benefit. not according to all the latest rhetoric, especially Bush's recent speeches. I am totally aware of what's going on. My point is that the government keeps saying that we're doing this to give the Iraqis "freedom," which doesn't make sense when we are so rarely interested in liberating other oppresssed people. -zelda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jceman 1 #15 March 21, 2003 QuoteAs far as being war hungry, it's very easy to interpret repeated posts extolling the virtues of kicking butt, of blanket approval of the GWB approach, of the total depravity of the French, of the lack of necessity of understanding the Middle East as being an indication of being war hungry. Unless someone else called you "war hungry", what I said is that I didn't share your unseemly enthusiasm for the prospect of war. I did not disagree with you as to the need, rather pointedly, I agreed; but I stated I did not share in the bloodthirsty attitude you and several others here have exhibited. I think you and a few others had best take a look at what we say and then take a good hard look at the messages you have been sending. Do you really want to have the reputation you have built? Is that truly how you want to be perceived? Bill von, Wendy, and others have stated their opposition to starting this war. I have not always agreed with them, but I am glad they were able to take the stands they did. They have exhibited nothing other than support for our troops, despite their true misgivings about the war. I don't think either our troops or the rest of us can ask for more than that. Faster horses, younger women, older whiskey, more money. Why do they call it "Tourist Season" if we can't shoot them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #16 March 21, 2003 Quotenot according to all the latest rhetoric, especially Bush's recent speeches. "Here's what we're going to do", the main content of Bush's "recent speeches", isn't rhetoric. QuoteI am totally aware of what's going on. My point is that the government keeps saying that we're doing this to give the Iraqis "freedom," which doesn't make sense when we are so rarely interested in liberating other oppresssed people. Yea, it's all about the oil . . . ZZZZZZzzzzzzz . . . . . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,167 #17 March 21, 2003 QuoteYea, it's all about the oil . . . ZZZZZZzzzzzzz . . . . Yeah, I guess if it's not about the humanity, it must be about the oil. There are no other choices, and it certainly doesn't matter if you don't read what's there anyway. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #18 March 21, 2003 Quote Quote Yea, it's all about the oil . . . ZZZZZZzzzzzzz . . . . Yeah, I guess if it's not about the humanity, it must be about the oil. There are no other choices, and it certainly doesn't matter if you don't read what's there anyway. Ok, it's all about the oil . . . AND the chance to bomb the crap out of thousands of evil feriners. Is that it? It's not about the USA making a STAND against EVIL (and I mean absolute evil, forget the relativistic I'm ok you're ok drivel the PHD's down at the anti-war protest spout off). Right? Am I right? Or am I missing your point? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,167 #19 March 21, 2003 My point is that it's not about one thing (and I don't think you thought it was), and some people assign a different importance to different parts of it. That's not drivel. So when I disagree with one piece of it, that doesn't mean I disagree with everything, and it certainly doesn't mean I think that's the only important thing. This is a shades of grey issue, and most of the pieces are shades of grey too. Picking each piece, assigning a color to it, and counting the results isn't going to give you a good answer. So when you say it's about taking a stand against EVIL, when I ask why this particular manifestation is the one that's worth bombing over, that doesn't mean I'm for evil, or that I think Saddam Hussein is good. And I'm not saying that about you either. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #20 March 21, 2003 Quoteclucks like a chicken... walks like a chicken..... Therefore it is a hypocritical liberal democrat! This was posted by Gemini not Trent. I take full credit for the remark. JimOh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #21 March 21, 2003 QuoteMy point is that . . . You have a nice way of expressing yourself. Thanks. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #22 March 22, 2003 QuoteIf you give someone freedom, or set them free, then you should not expect something in return. Like you expect from France. If you want something in return than you not liberating them. It is just the opposite. Interesting definition. If you expect an ally that you assisted in the past to support you in the future then you are enslaving them? (enslaving is the opposite of liberating) I guess that means there has never been a liberation in the history of the world. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #23 March 22, 2003 QuoteIt's interesting to me that the current reasoning for attacking Iraq is so the Iraqi people can be liberated. I think that is one of the eight reasons that the US government has given for attacking Iraq. It was Powell who outlined the reasons. Look it up. Don't simplify the situation so that you can bash policies you don't agree with. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #24 March 22, 2003 Quoteget in touch with reality. that was a "selective" length of film. what it didn't show was the bediwens shaking their heads in shock at what they saw when the 7th cal. rolling by at 40 mph. with choppers flying at 50' agl just ahead of them. What makes you think it was "selective". It is from the only city we have taken so far. At least we rolled past the Bedouins and didn't enslave them as has been insinuated on this thread. The fact that the Iraqi populace is "cheering" the US military (no matter how selective) should be taken as positive. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zelda 0 #25 March 22, 2003 I suspect there are more than eight; I don't need to look it up. The fact that this is being oversimplified is exactly the point I'm trying to make, because in the past few days, the primary reason given is liberation, which I think is kind of a cop-out reason to give in order to make the war more palatable to those who oppose it. -zelda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
