Most Libs approve of attacks on our troops

[Brick Tamland 0]

I have to say that I have never seen anyone use that here.

 

Just a few I could find....

 

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...c=230060&hl

 

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...c=237925&hl

 

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...c=205880&hl

[kpbuckeye 2]

No word combination better describes the ideologues that have hijacked U.S. foreign policy better than

Chickenhawk. A policy of pre-emption and imperialism using the blood of lower and middle class Americans formulated by those who refused to serve when they had the chance.

 

"But 9/11 changed everything"..... Horse shiot! We were going into Iraq had that horrible day happened or not. There's mounds of evidence pointing towards this. Evidence that hasn't been formulated by political hacks, but people close to this administration. To think otherwise is flies in the face of reason.

 

This isn't your Republican Party. This is a group of privileged ideologues that have wrapped themselves in the flag, god and clever marketing. They have taken advantage of the patriotism of all Americans by labeling dissent as "helping the terrorists."

 

The most used comeback in this forum for some on the right is "Scoreboard." This isn't a f-ing fantasy football game!!! If so, I'm looking at the scoreboard, and it reads 2600. 2600 of America's finest men and women. Killed for the ideology of a hand full of chickenhawks sitting in a Washington think tank.

 

I'm no "leftist pinko commie" as you would like to believe, just an ordinary American.

 

 

 

 

Just a few I could find....

 

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...c=230060&hl

 

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...c=237925&hl

 

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...c=205880&hl

 

 

hate to tell you there chief but the guys who used that term in your great examples are not hardcore right wingers.

[Brick Tamland 0]

And I'm not a hard core conservative, by any means. Read some of my posts in the past. I in no way, believe this administration is blameless.

 

For the last 14 years this country has had a president who did not fight in a war when it was their time. Clinton and Bush both got out of it, they both used whatever means necessary to not fight in the war. These two men have grown up to be president since then. They are(or were) the leader of an entire nation. Whether either of them felt the need to go to war at any time, for the benefit of the nation they now lead, should have absolutely nothing to do with their Vietnam experience. If Bush thought to himself that Hussein posed a serious threat, but he didn't want to do anything about it because he didn't serve in Nam, and was afraid of being called a chickenhawk...then we should start complaining. Because then, he would have compromised the nations security for reasons that involve only him, personally.

 

It's his job to keep this country safe. You can twist his words any way you would like. But the fact remains this problem will not go away. You can either confront it, try to root out the problem, or ignore it and just hope it goes away. If you have paid any attention to anything these militant groups have said for the past 20-30 yeras...this problem isn't just going to disappear.

 

I was refering to Wolfowitz, Cheney, Kristol, etc. I think Bush was viewed by the Neo Cons as someone they could get elected and push their agenda upon.

 

We began confronting the issue of terrorism by invading Afganistan and going after the Taliban and Bin Laden, and we were just in doing so. Even the most ametuer Middle East expert knew the invasion of Iraq would inflame the situation, creating more terrorists. The NIE released/leaked this week agrees.

[DanXIII 8]

Oh...I totally agree w/you.

 

Although, at least those fringe cons were rooting for war the whole time. You gotta' admit it's a little more when someone who says they're for peace and against war is secretly hoping for violence (kinda' like those animal rights who torched the pet store to "free" the animals form their inhumane treatment.)

 

Am I the only one who sees the contradiction here?

[Brick Tamland 0]

hate to tell you there chief but the guys who used that term in your great examples are not hardcore right wingers.

 

I'll take your non response as an affirmation to everything I said.

 

Thanks again Vanilla Ice.

[D_House 0]

I'm not equating a war with a BJ...I am, however, saying that each side doesn't want the other side to succeed all the time. The Dems don't want the repubs to succeed, because that means the Dems were wrong. Nobody likes to be wrong.

 

As far as your question, Bush had strong support from the Libs on Iraq initially as well. Even favorites like John Kerry and Hilary Clinton supported the effort, with the same info that Bush was going off of. But now that it looks like Iraq may end up being a failure, what do these people do? They switch sides. They attack the same man they agreed with just a few years ago. Tell America he's a liar, and a chickenhawk, and a daddy's boy...I could go on forever with all the ridiculous insults thrown his way on a daily basis both here and in the political world.

 

How many of you hardcore anti - war people were anti- war when it all started? Not one of you will live up to the fact you supported the war, but statistics tell us otherwise. But now people watch propoganda like farenheit 9/11, and watch liberal news, and listen to the tide start to turn against Bush and everyone jumps on board with the Anti-Bush bandwagon. Many of these same people who are so passionate about hating Bush and calling the war a mistake, also supported the war 3 years ago. But now John Stewart tells us Bush is a dumba$$, and of course he's on TV...he must be right.

I honestly never supported the Iraq invasion.

 

You actually demonstrated my point by bringing up the initial support for Iraq: that people are willing to get on board with the political opposition if they agree with what they are doing. The blind hatred isn't for Bush, it's for his refusal to admit mistakes. The braintrust behind the invasion had a strategy and predictions. The strategy proved to be flawed, the predictions wrong. At the same time, the party line as to just why we were in Iraq kept changing. Instead of being greeted as saviours, it is found that the average Iraqi wishes our troops harm! Why are we helping them? Doesn't this just reek of incompetence? Isn't this worthy of criticism?

 

Furthermore, I'd argue that it's the GOP's general political strategy of going on the offensive when faced with criticism that has engendered a lot of the political tension we have today. It's kind of like what you are doing here... Instead of accepting that people could possibly change their minds on something as complex as a war on their own, and that they have questions and criticisms for our leaders, you claim it's all a bunch of follow-the-leader, that people need Jon Stewart to tell them what to think. It's somewhat condescending.

[davebg 0]

Am I the only one who sees the contradiction here?

I don't, but maybe I just didn't make my point clear enough.

 

I concede that if Dems were in office that there would be a fringe element on the right who would be hoping for an attack. I think that's wrong. However, it is more in "character", if you will, for that group to be rooting for violence than it is for the fringe lefties who are vehemently anti-war and pro-peace, but at the same time may be wishing for an attack or failure on Bush's watch.

[kpbuckeye 2]

I'll take your non response as an affirmation to everything I said.

 

Thanks again Vanilla Ice.

 

 

you kinda stupid, your examples were bogus moron.

 

scoreboard

[Brick Tamland 0]

you kinda stupid, your examples were bogus moron.

 

Irony at it's finest.

[parrot 789]

It would seem to be Bushies who approve of attacks on our troops seeing as how they are the ones who endorsed sending them into a war with questionable cause, ill-defined goals based on polly-anna-ish assumptions, and with insufficient resources and manpower to achieve those goals. Even as it has become painfully apparent that this war has been horribly - almost criminally - mismanaged from the start, they have resisted all calls to either install some competent leadership that might right the course or start laying the groundwork for getting the troops out. Troops are dying every day because Rumsfeld is too arrogant to admit his strategy was focked and Bush doesn't have the spine to say he made a mistake and replace the stupid jackoff. The people who supported this war should be the most angry about what a cluster-fock Rumsfeld and his cadre of neo-con yes-men have turned it into, but for some reason they aren't.

[Brad GLuckman 518]

I was refering to Wolfowitz, Cheney, Kristol, etc. I think Bush was viewed by the Neo Cons as someone they could get elected and push their agenda upon.

 

We began confronting the issue of terrorism by invading Afganistan and going after the Taliban and Bin Laden, and we were just in doing so. Even the most ametuer Middle East expert knew the invasion of Iraq would inflame the situation, creating more terrorists. The NIE released/leaked this week agrees.

 

I agree with the neo-con point you make. I saw a really good documentary when I was in Ireland about Neo-cons...and they're influence on Reagan and on Bush. It shows how they use fear, to incite patriotism, and in doing so achieve their ultimimate goal of war. Had plenty of facts, and was well done. Wasn't pure propoganda like Farenheit 9/11.

 

I honestly never supported the Iraq invasion.

 

You actually demonstrated my point by bringing up the initial support for Iraq: that people are willing to get on board with the political opposition if they agree with what they are doing. The blind hatred isn't for Bush, it's for his refusal to admit mistakes. The braintrust behind the invasion had a strategy and predictions. The strategy proved to be flawed, the predictions wrong. At the same time, the party line as to just why we were in Iraq kept changing. Instead of being greeted as saviours, it is found that the average Iraqi wishes our troops harm! Why are we helping them? Doesn't this just reek of incompetence? Isn't this worthy of criticism?

 

Furthermore, I'd argue that it's the GOP's general political strategy of going on the offensive when faced with criticism that has engendered a lot of the political tension we have today. It's kind of like what you are doing here... Instead of accepting that people could possibly change their minds on something as complex as a war on their own, and that they have questions and criticisms for our leaders, you claim it's all a bunch of follow-the-leader, that people need Jon Stewart to tell them what to think. It's somewhat condescending.

 

Again, I agree with the reasons for going to war. You can look up my past posts in other threads about this, but I'll summarize.

 

I think going to war in Iraq was more realizing a serious problem in the world, and trying something to take care of it before it continues to get worse. I think the basic Bush idea was, democracy in the middle east will squash the desire for people to become terrorists. There is no way we will ever be able to kill every terrorist. So basically, they wanted a change of ideals in the region. Iraq was to be the example, with the rest of the mid-east watching and following suit.Obvioslu it's not going very well, which brings me to my next point.

 

I really agree with you that the administration botched the entire war planning, execution, and continues to ignore the problems there and paint a pretty picture. I've stated that several times in several other threads.

 

My point about people changing their minds...is the majority of people are incredibly fickle. America has an incredible short attention span. And my view is that the majority base their views and opinions straight from what it is they see on TV, which in most cases is biased one way or the other...although mostly to the left. Right after 9/11, everyone's pro-war, after afghanistan everyone's still pro-war, even after no WMD's were found everyone was still pro-war. Then the insurgency starts to get going, troops start dying, and people get bored. They get tired of seeing it on TV. 3 whole years and it's not frickin disneyland over there....must be a mistake. So instead of attacking the way the administration has executed the war, they attack the reasons for going in the first place...doesn't make sense to me.

 

If someone is going to go around and make some of the statements they make. Especially the extreme and radical ones they make about Bush they should be doing their research. They should be getting their news from more than one news source. Too many people don't have a clue, yet still have a strong opinion on Iraq.

 

Even as it has become painfully apparent that this war has been horribly - almost criminally - mismanaged from the start, they have resisted all calls to either install some competent leadership that might right the course or start laying the groundwork for getting the troops out. Troops are dying every day because Rumsfeld is too arrogant to admit his strategy was focked and Bush doesn't have the spine to say he made a mistake and replace the stupid jackoff. The people who supported this war should be the most angry about what a cluster-fock Rumsfeld and his cadre of neo-con yes-men have turned it into, but for some reason they aren't.

 

[ZeroTolerance 582]

Out of curiosity, do we presently HAVE a course? I know we are told to stay the course ad naseum, but does anyone actually have an idea what that course is? Aside from hanging around in Iraq while civil war breaks out in order to prevent Iran from invading. Please don't tell me that this democracy we set up there and our efforts to prepare Iraqi police are all there is to the plan because...I dont think it is working.

[Brick Tamland 0]

II think going to war in Iraq was more realizing a serious problem in the world, and trying something to take care of it before it continues to get worse. I think the basic Bush idea was, democracy in the middle east will squash the desire for people to become terrorists. There is no way we will ever be able to kill every terrorist. So basically, they wanted a change of ideals in the region. Iraq was to be the example, with the rest of the mid-east watching and following suit.

[/quote

 

History disagrees with the notion of invading a sovergn nation with the intention of installing a democracy. However flawed their reasoning, I understand the basic premise behind what they were trying to accomplish. I think a lot of people would be open to continuing this fight if we were told up front what we were getting into. Instead of being straight with the American people, the Bushies used post 9/11 scare tactics to gain public approval. The "fickle" public turned once claims of WMB, Sadaam/9-11 links, etc were debunked, not because CNN said so.

[kpbuckeye 2]

Irony at it's finest.

 

the irony is you can't seem to follow you own posts.

[donhaas 18]

No word combination better describes the ideologues that have hijacked U.S. foreign policy better than

Chickenhawk. A policy of pre-emption and imperialism using the blood of lower and middle class Americans formulated by those who refused to serve when they had the chance.

 

"But 9/11 changed everything"..... Horse shiot! We were going into Iraq had that horrible day happened or not. There's mounds of evidence pointing towards this. Evidence that hasn't been formulated by political hacks, but people close to this administration. To think otherwise is flies in the face of reason.

 

This isn't your Republican Party. This is a group of privileged ideologues that have wrapped themselves in the flag, god and clever marketing. They have taken advantage of the patriotism of all Americans by labeling dissent as "helping the terrorists."

 

The most used comeback in this forum for some on the right is "Scoreboard." This isn't a f-ing fantasy football game!!! If so, I'm looking at the scoreboard, and it reads 2600. 2600 of America's finest men and women. Killed for the ideology of a hand full of chickenhawks sitting in a Washington think tank.

 

I'm no "leftist pinko commie" as you would like to believe, just an ordinary American.

 

Thanks for saving me a ton of time.

 

Chickenhawk is the perfect definition, Brad. Sorry you don't like it. But nothing (in one word) can describe someone who is willing to spill all types of blood but when it was his turn he cowardly summoned his rich, connected dad and ran away like a little girl.

 

I have no problem with the word Fudge-Packer. You know why? Because I'm not one.

 

Why do you have so much problem with chickenhawk?

 

I detest chickenhawks. Get used to the word. People are wising up. The kids coming back in body bags and with limbs missing are not rich republican's kids. You can't win a war without popular support and since chickenhawks won't fight, this quagmire will go on and on and on.

 

People need to quit the silly comparisons to WWII. This is Vietnam, if anything. I could give a rat's hairy ass if Iraq has a democracy or Saddam was a bad man. He was at his most evil when he was supported by Republicans in the 80s. It's bullsh!t. There are plenty worse men around the world, too.

 

Send a Bush twin over there to fight and this war would be over at the end of the day.

Everybody knows it. That's why this war can't be won.

[Brick Tamland 0]

the irony is you can't seem to follow you own posts.

 

enlighten me, moron.

[kpbuckeye 2]

enlighten me, moron.

 

 

ok then;

 

your first link shows jerryskids, hardly a hardcore rightwinger.

 

your second is dhouse. not even close, seems much more moderate takes shots at rp all the time.

 

your third, 'scoreboard' not even used on that page that i could find.

 

tuck your tail between your legs and go get your shinebox.

 

consider yourself enlightened.

[Brick Tamland 0]

ok then;

 

your first link shows jerryskids, hardly a hardcore rightwinger.

 

your second is dhouse. not even close, seems much more moderate takes shots at rp all the time.

 

your third, 'scoreboard' not even used on that page that i could find.

 

tuck your tail between your legs and go get your shinebox.

 

consider yourself enlightened.

 

Sorry Vanilla, but those were the first three I found when I searched. I will find more if you would like me to.

 

Your intelligence only goes as far as a link someone feeds you. You must have agreed with everything in my initial post since all you can come up with is "go get your shine box."

 

BTW Vanilla, you're a fing waste of space. Give yourself a trophy for living with your parents.

[kpbuckeye 2]

Sorry Vanilla, but those were the first three I found when I searched. I will find more if you would like me to.

 

Your intelligence only goes as far as a link someone feeds you. You must have agreed with everything in my initial post since all you can come up with is "go get your shine box."

 

BTW Vanilla, you're a fing waste of space. Give yourself a trophy for living with your parents.

 

 

you tried to make a point and failed monkey d1ck. get over it.

[Brick Tamland 0]

you tried to make a point and failed monkey d1ck. get over it.

 

Vanilla, you've never made a point. Now turn your computer off, your mom is calling you upstairs for dinner.

[Ravens 03 0]

As much as I disapprove of this post and know that it is made up, it does pain me that I think some of this to be true.

 

I honestly do believe that there is a small fringe element on the lib side of the fence that honestly does support attacks on our troops and actively roots for them, just so they can make their arch nemesis Bush look bad.

 

sad but true.

[Brad GLuckman 518]

Thanks for saving me a ton of time.

 

Chickenhawk is the perfect definition, Brad. Sorry you don't like it. But nothing (in one word) can describe someone who is willing to spill all types of blood but when it was his turn he cowardly summoned his rich, connected dad and ran away like a little girl.

 

I have no problem with the word Fudge-Packer. You know why? Because I'm not one.

 

Why do you have so much problem with chickenhawk?

 

I detest chickenhawks. Get used to the word. People are wising up. The kids coming back in body bags and with limbs missing are not rich republican's kids. You can't win a war without popular support and since chickenhawks won't fight, this quagmire will go on and on and on.

 

People need to quit the silly comparisons to WWII. This is Vietnam, if anything. I could give a rat's hairy ass if Iraq has a democracy or Saddam was a bad man. He was at his most evil when he was supported by Republicans in the 80s. It's bullsh!t. There are plenty worse men around the world, too.

 

Send a Bush twin over there to fight and this war would be over at the end of the day.

Everybody knows it. That's why this war can't be won.

 

I never said you used the term in the wrong context. I just said you were over-using it. You say the same thing in every post. We understand you hate Bush. We get it. We've had this argument before Donhaas. And again, I'm saying that this is the President of our country. If he feels the need to go to war to make America safe, is he not allowed to do it, because he didn't fight a war himself?

 

I see your reasoning, and I understand your point. I understand how you can think it's cowardly to send young men to fight a war, when he was to afraid to do it himself. But the fact remains he is the President, and as President, sometimes that is a call that must be made. So should somebody not be allowed to serve as President if they've never been to war?

 

Unfortunately, it's normal everyday people. Not always poor though, you are wrong there. Many of these kids are middle class, and some of the officers are even rich dems and repubs. The only way to change that is to have a draft, and I'm sure you wouldn't like that either.

[GettnHuge 1]

[Badmojo1006 0]

President Bush keeps talking about not leaving Iraq until the "job" is done?

 

 

 

 

Somebody tell me what the "job" is again?

[Franknbeans 46]

President Bush keeps talking about not leaving Iraq until the "job" is done?

Somebody tell me what the "job" is again?

[MDC 5,931]

As much as I disapprove of this post and know that it is made up, it does pain me that I think some of this to be true.

 

I honestly do believe that there is a small fringe element on the lib side of the fence that honestly does support attacks on our troops and actively roots for them, just so they can make their arch nemesis Bush look bad.

 

I honestly believe there's an element on the GOP side of the fence that honestly knows the war in Iraq has been a huge waste of manpower and money, but they keep our soldiers out there because they don't want to make the President look bad by admitting a mistake. Unfortunately they aren't fringers - they're in Congress and all over this bored.

[donhaas 18]

I never said you used the term in the wrong context. I just said you were over-using it. You say the same thing in every post. We understand you hate Bush. We get it. We've had this argument before Donhaas. And again, I'm saying that this is the President of our country. If he feels the need to go to war to make America safe, is he not allowed to do it, because he didn't fight a war himself?

 

I see your reasoning, and I understand your point. I understand how you can think it's cowardly to send young men to fight a war, when he was to afraid to do it himself. But the fact remains he is the President, and as President, sometimes that is a call that must be made. So should somebody not be allowed to serve as President if they've never been to war?

 

Unfortunately, it's normal everyday people. Not always poor though, you are wrong there. Many of these kids are middle class, and some of the officers are even rich dems and repubs. The only way to change that is to have a draft, and I'm sure you wouldn't like that either.

 

I have nothing against the draft; just make sure all the names are in the bowl. Soldiers drafted from all backgrounds would probably ensure a much, much smarter foreign policy. It's easy to send some poor peon to die in some crapass country's quagmire, much harder to send your son or daughter.

 

Regardless, we are going to need a draft because our troops are going to be stretched incredibly thin and we can't recruit. Recruiters are lying to get people to join and they're taking all kinds of delinquents and the like. It's only going to get worse.

 

It's a noble thing to sign up to protect America. I love our troops. Unfortunately, these kids were lied to over and over. And it's not all make-believe play war to me like it is to neo-cons. I see and talk to real people that are affected by this quagmire. It's sad.

 

We've shown that we can take out Saddam in a minute. Great. No need to stay. We've shown our power. Let's get the hell out of there. Don't act like we care about Iraqi freedom because we sure as hell didn't care about them while we were supporting Saddam as he was gassing them and killing them. We sure as hell don't care about the thousands who have died through "collateral damage" and whatnot. Let's at least quit lying about that.

 

Remember we couldn't leave Viet Nam because we couldn't show weakness to the Commies? How'd that work out for us? 55,000 lives later and billions of dollars later.

 

Same thing here. It's not weakness. It's smarts.

[Herbivore 915]

Bush and Gett n Huge are idiots.

[davebg 0]

I honestly believe there's an element on the GOP side of the fence that honestly knows the war in Iraq has been a huge waste of manpower and money, but they keep our soldiers out there because they don't want to make the President look bad by admitting a mistake. Unfortunately they aren't fringers - they're in Congress and all over this bored.

Sooooo... ...you give no credence to the notion that we can't pull our troops at this time b/c it wouldn't be wise or very responsible for us to leave Iraq in the state that it is in right now?

 

ETA: Actually, let me clarify. I totally believe that there are some on the GOP side of the fence who are guilty of what you say. I just don't think it's nearly as many as you allege.