People Hurting The War Effort (Unpatriotic People)

[Sayeret]

People need to realize that even if they don't support every decision made by the President they need to respect him and the troops. (In other words not do everything in their means to hurt his descision). Some of the democratcs and liberals have begun to compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam, this is not just imature but direspectful to actual veterans of Vietnam. It's great that John Kerry fought in Vietnam and won a lot of medals but it doesn't give him the right to critize veterans of Vietnam who fought in the war. Even more hurtful than these things is when people stand infront of potential bombsites of their country to hurt the war effort. IMO it is okaey to not support the war but it isn't okaey to root for the enemy such as Michael Moore does and block traffic.

You don't have to agree with the war in Iraq but you don't need to express it in such disrepectful ways such as blocking traffic, sabotaging fuel which troops may use, etc. It sickens me to think about how disrespectful people are in a lot of countries nowadays. Could you imagine thousands of Americans going around yelling at FDR for going to war with Japan, standing in streets protesting, and standing infront of Japanese military targets. Things like that would've of never happened but now crap like that is allowed.

Also the people who say the Unites States is doing horribly in Iraq and must have no knowledge on military history or they would realize that a lot has been acheived and for relatively few causalties. If this war had happened in 1940 or 1950 people would claim it was one of the best military victories ever but now for some reason now some a lot can't accept more than ten casualties in a war.

Note. I meant people who are so disrespectful to the President that they call him names such as mass murderer and a war criminal when I said unpatriotic people NOT people who didn't support his descision to go to war with Iraq, unless they did it in some kind of extremely disrespectful way like listed above.

[ArmedPacifist]

Japan was different, they hit first.

They posed a a significant threat to the United States and it's allies. Iraq did not.

Don't compare apples and oranges.

[usa320]

I agree.

Want disrespect- i was in a local Veterans Cemetary yesterday for a Memorial day service. Some little grunge prick decided to show up with a "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" sign...

God damn faggot...

You want to protest thats fine at a rally or march, but you do not walk into a soldiers memorial service to protest.

:fork:

suffice to say he was chased away by some Vietnam vets.

woot

[mocking_loudly_died]

I'm not a patriotic person, I think patriotism blinds people too much and seems to be used an excuse to stifle debate.

I'd rather die for this lovely chicken burger in my hand than some antiquated concept of belonging to a people that support AFL (It's such a terrible sport).

I guess there is a line between ranting and questioning the Iraq conflict; people shouldn't be hounded for being on either side of the fence.

[Secret Squirrel]

was this post posted awhile ago? or maybe i read the same thing on another board? rofl By the way Sayeret dont compare respecting the president to respecting the troops. Soldiers dont decide to go to war, they're forced into that position. And personally i think Bush is an idiot for forcing them into that position. Regarding Vietnam...well the comparison comes from having to fighting a local population. You dont know whos your friend in Iraq and whos waiting for you to turn your back (not being racist or anything, just that i'm sure to a lot of people one Iraqi looks like another). And if you dont win the hearts and minds and build a solid grass routes intel system, you just arent going to have much success in obtaining your goals in the long run.

[Secret Squirrel]

You want to protest thats fine at a rally or march, but you do not walk into a soldiers memorial service to protest.


Oh the irony...werent you the one who praised a man for showing disrepect at the Vietnam memorial in another thread? Why the double standards? rofl

[Sayeret]

Secret Squirrel wrote:


Oh the irony...werent you the one who praised a man for showing disrepect at the Vietnam memorial in another thread? Why the double standards? rofl

Don't act like a little **** on my post.

[Secret Squirrel]

Secret Squirrel wrote:


Oh the irony...werent you the one who praised a man for showing disrepect at the Vietnam memorial in another thread? Why the double standards? rofl

Don't act like a little **** on my post.

Its the truth. I want to know why the double standard when it represents someone other than himself. If you cant see it as a valid question...i guess i dont really care if you can or cant.

[Sayeret]

Saying things like Iraq is just like Vietnam only hurts the war effort and makes me think that people like John Kerry would be glad everytime the US makes a mistake like with Abu Ghraib.

[mocking_loudly_died]

Saying things like Iraq is just like Vietnam only hurts the war effort and makes me think that people like John Kerry would be glad everytime the US makes a mistake like with Abu Ghraib.

I don't think you can compare the conflicts, but you shouldn't put your head in the sand to some of the current negative aspects either.

Yes there is a great hypocrisy over Abu Ghraib but that's the price we pay for being part of a democracy.

[Secret Squirrel]

Saying things like Iraq is just like Vietnam only hurts the war effort and makes me think that people like John Kerry would be glad everytime the US makes a mistake like with Abu Ghraib.

you already posted that in the initial post. Have you run out of ideas already have you have to repeat yourself? I guess i'll follow your lead. By the way Sayeret dont compare respecting the president to respecting the troops. Soldiers dont decide to go to war, they're forced into that position. And personally i think Bush is an idiot for forcing them into that position. Regarding Vietnam...well the comparison comes from having to fighting a local population. You dont know whos your friend in Iraq and whos waiting for you to turn your back (not being racist or anything, just that i'm sure to a lot of people one Iraqi looks like another). And if you dont win the hearts and minds and build a solid grass routes intel system, you just arent going to have much success in obtaining your goals in the long run.

[Sayeret]

Secret Squirrel wrote:


you already posted that in the initial post. Have you run out of ideas already have you have to repeat yourself? I guess i'll follow your lead. By the way Sayeret dont compare respecting the president to respecting the troops. Soldiers dont decide to go to war, they're forced into that position. And personally i think Bush is an idiot for forcing them into that position. Regarding Vietnam...well the comparison comes from having to fighting a local population. You dont know whos your friend in Iraq and whos waiting for you to turn your back (not being racist or anything, just that i'm sure to a lot of people one Iraqi looks like another). And if you dont win the hearts and minds and build a solid grass routes intel system, you just arent going to have much success in obtaining your goals in the long run.

Its funny that you say Bush is an idiot because you have never called Clinton an idiot for allowing the Al Qaeda to bomb the embassies and the USS Cole. Also Iraq isn't at all like Vietnam, the only John Kerry says it is because he has no respect for the veterans who fought there and that he only cares about winning the election. Your the one who needs to not compare apples to oranges, Iraq and Vietnam.

Secret Squirrel don't reply if your going to act like an ass like you have previously.

[Tane Angle]

I think comparisons are sometimes good. They allow us to learn from our mistakes. We can say "oh, X didn't work in Vietnam or Lebanon or wherever, so maybe we should try Y instead."

Both are wars that are of at least somewhat questionable need. Both wars began with highly-professional active duty militaries (let us hope that our military in five years does not too closesly resemble the military of the 1970s). Both might have been better fought using more chiefly SOF. Both involve porous borders.

Both involve roadside bombs and hit-and-run tactics. Baghdad's IEDs aren't that different from the bicylcle bombs of Saigon.

Of course, most Vietnamese (North or South) are ethnically homogeneous. In the highlands, that is not so, but in Vietnam we expected ethnic Vietnamese to fight ethnic Vietnamese and it didn't always work. Sometimes it did, but not always as much as some might have liked. The highlanders, though, like the Highlanders of Scotland (there's my little nod to Argyll p-) ), proved to be skilled fighters.

The ethnic issues in Iraq are somewhat different in Iraq. And, of course, there is the additional factor of AQO and other groups.

Personally, I think there are many similarities between Iraq and Lebanon as well.

I respect the office of the Presidency. I respect the idea of it. I do not respect the man much. Getting people killed needlessly has that effect. I respect the troops. Otherwise I'd be shooting myself in the foot. It is specifically because I respect the troops that I do not respect President Bush so much.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[American Patriot]

Sounds like Secret Squirrel is a Klinton Kool-Aid drinker

[Secret Squirrel]

Secret Squirrel wrote:


you already posted that in the initial post. Have you run out of ideas already have you have to repeat yourself? I guess i'll follow your lead. By the way Sayeret dont compare respecting the president to respecting the troops. Soldiers dont decide to go to war, they're forced into that position. And personally i think Bush is an idiot for forcing them into that position. Regarding Vietnam...well the comparison comes from having to fighting a local population. You dont know whos your friend in Iraq and whos waiting for you to turn your back (not being racist or anything, just that i'm sure to a lot of people one Iraqi looks like another). And if you dont win the hearts and minds and build a solid grass routes intel system, you just arent going to have much success in obtaining your goals in the long run.

Its funny that you say Bush is an idiot because you have never called Clinton an idiot for allowing the Al Qaeda to bomb the embassies and the USS Cole. Also Iraq isn't at all like Vietnam, the only John Kerry says it is because he has no respect for the veterans who fought there and that he only cares about winning the election. Your the one who needs to not compare apples to oranges, Iraq and Vietnam.

Secret Squirrel don't reply if your going to act like an ass like you have previously.

What does Iraq have to do with bombing embassies and the USS Cole? And what the **** are you talking about when you said "Its funny that you say Bush is an idiot because you have never called Clinton..."? Iraq was a pre-emptive war based on faulty intelligence from, among other sources, exhiled Iraqis. Bush was basically suckered into doing their dirty work. And like Vietnam was a ideologically based war, so, as Bush would have us believe, is Iraq. Also, both wars have the local population intermixing with the insurgents and feeding paranoia. Above all, Bush chose this war, it wasnt forced on him. So you statement of disrepect for Bush including soldiers is just plain moronic and uneducated.

[usa320]

No, he sounds more like a pansy metro****** to me.

[Secret Squirrel]

Sounds like Secret Squirrel is a Klinton Kool-Aid drinker

is that your real thought or another double standard? rofl

[Secret Squirrel]

No, he sounds more like a pansy metro****** to me.

going to explain your double standard as posted earlier in this thread as it contrasts to your opinions in another thread? rofl

[Sayeret]

Secret Squirrel, Clinton could've of attacked the Al Qaeda back in the 1990s because they bombed the two embassies and the USS Cole yet he didn't. When Bush attacks the Al Qaeda and terrorists (Saddam supoorted the Palestinian suicide bombers) you get mad.

BTW Clinton and Al Gore supported the war in Iraq just like George W. Bush did.

[Secret Squirrel]

Secret Squirrel, Clinton could've of attacked the Al Qaeda back in the 1990s because they bombed the two embassies and the USS Cole yet he didn't. When Bush attacks the Al Qaeda and terrorists (Saddam supoorted the Palestinian suicide bombers) you get mad.

BTW Clinton and Al Gore supported the war in Iraq just like George W. Bush did.

Again, what the USS Cole and Embassies bombing have to do with Iraq? Well other than the Chinese embassy being "accidently" bombed during Desert Storm rofl Bush attacked Iraq, not AQ. He should have kept more resources focused on Ghanny instead taking the pressure off. Thanks to Bush, Iraq is now loaded with terrorists. And also thanks to Bush terrorists have their holy war right in front of them rather than across the pond. The whole war was sold through half-truths and lies.

[usa320]

Again, what the USS Cole and Embassies bombing have to do with Iraq? Well other than the Chinese embassy being "accidently" bombed during Desert Storm

Yes, the Chinese embassy was bombed durring desert storm...uh huh...you must be like 9 years old or just stupid.


Thanks to Bush, Iraq is now loaded with terrorists.

That was the plan. Its easier to kill em when the summabitches are all in one spot.

p-)

[Tane Angle]

Ok, I don't care for Clinton anymore than I do for Bush, but Clinton is neither here nor there. What does that have to do with people "disrespecting soldiers by disliking Bush?"

[Sayeret]

Secret Squirrel wrote:


Well other than the Chinese embassy being "accidently" bombed during Desert Storm rofl

I'm I missing something? Why is it so funny that Chinese civilians were killed at the Chinese Embassy?

[Secret Squirrel]

Again, what the USS Cole and Embassies bombing have to do with Iraq? Well other than the Chinese embassy being "accidently" bombed during Desert Storm

Yes, the Chinese embassy was bombed durring desert storm...uh huh...you must be like 9 years old or just stupid.


Thanks to Bush, Iraq is now loaded with terrorists.

That was the plan. Its easier to kill em when the summabitches are all in one spot.

p-)

Yep my mistake, it was in Belgrade. Still waiting for you to answer for your double standards usa320, or havent you the balls to stand behind your contradiction? rofl Easier to kill them when they are in one place? Nice way to use the military as bait. Hrm, the terrorists are probably thinking the same thing. Nice way to support the troops usa320. Or are you "9 years old or just stupid"?

http://img77.photobucket.com/albums/v233/SSSquirrel/TMW07-16-03.gif

[Durandal]

People need to realize that even if they don't support every decision made by the President they need to respect him

Hey man, I am a Conservative Libertarian and hate Kerry, but Bush ain't getting an "Out 'O Jail Free" card just because he is the President. I am his boss as are all the citizens of the United States. He is OUR employee. If screws up he gets my bitter wrath...if he does well, he gets a cookie and four more years.

Oh, and being a patriot is NOT about being a sheep...quite the opposite.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Sayeret assuming that your an Israeli why should you be bothered in any way as how patriotic Americans are.

[n4292936]

1. You dont have to be a Clinton Apologist to despise George Bush
2. You can despise George Bush and support the troops at the same time - they are not mutually exclusive
3. Patriotism is not defined by support for a conflict or president, or the lack thereof. If that were the case there would be swathes of Americans swtching from patriots to traitors nearly every 4 years. Nor is patriotism determined by absolute and unwavring support for any political party. I for one can't stand the conservative Liberal Party in Australia but will possibly be voting them in again if the Labour government doesnt change their stance on our troops in Iraq. On the other hand I know I wont be voting Bush back in (and yes I do vote in America as well).
4. A tough stance on terrorism is not confined to certain political parties. Republicans don't have a better record throughout American history than Democrats (See the Regan years).
5. Good Americans speak up when the think something is wrong in their country. Likewise America's good friends shouldnt be afraid to speak up either.

What MockingLoudly said earlier about the nature of patriotism is perhaps the smartest thing said in this thread to date.

[ZeroPositive]

god that comic was funny :)

[stateofequilibrium]

Ummm, back to the original TOPIC at hand. I've begun to feel that the term "Unpatriotic" really is beginning to be, dare I say, liberally thrown around. It's becoming almost like the protective shield with which to brush your opponent and say, "you're just unpatriotic and want the terrorists to win."

Respect for the troops. Respect for the office of the President. Respect for our contry. All of these involve the right to say, "Hey, I DO NOT AGREE!." In fact, that's what our boys and girls are DYING to protect. That I can get up on my soap box and call the President a moron. Not that I would. Though some of his actions really have me questioning that.

And it's not disrespectful to make comparisons. Actually, you could probably compare this to a number of places and times the US tried to instill democracy into a country, almost literally by force of arms. I think, despite all of its flaws, Black Hawk Down said it best, "Do you think we will simply lay down our arms and accept American democracy?" How many times has that happen? And didn't we establish "democracy" in some Central American country because the United Fruit company asked us to? Oh yes, we did

It is NOT unpatriotic to be questioning and skeptical. It IS patriotism to express ones belief and ideas. Once again, to use another movie quote just because I loved this quote so much, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil who is standing center stage advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." To shout them out and shut them up because you don't agree with their views.. I'm not sure who then is more unpatriotic.

[Sayeret]

I'm not saying you have to like George W. Bush just people shouldn't go around calling him a Nazi and comparing him to Saddam Hussein or Bin-Laden.

Also it is disrespectful to compare Vietnam to the current war. Kerry is doing that because he wants to show that the United States is getting into another war it will not win. He is not saying that it is similiar because the people the US is fighting are using guerilla tactics rather he is saying that the United States is getting stuck in Iraq like it did in Vietnam. Saying this only supports the by insurgents by making them think that they are hurting the United States a lot more then they really are and that they will probably beat the United States just like the North Vietnamese did. So the insurgents won't quit fighting and will more easily be able to recruit people because now not only is Al-Sadr or Bin Laden or whoever is telling them they are successfully hurting the US in Iraq but now even some of the important leaders of the United States are telling them that if they continue their struggle then the US will have to leave just like in did in Vietnam. Even John McCain, who is a friend of John Kerry said that he believes the comparison between the current war and Vietnam will only endanger the lives of Americans.

[Mark Sman]

There are similarities and differences between Iraq and Vietnam.

In Vietnam we fought and won the battle against the insurgents. The Viet Cong (Viet Minh, NLF whatever) were basically eliminated by 1968. It was the North Vietnamese Army that prosecuted the war after 1968. What started as an internal war had become an external war.

Iraq was an external war at the start that has become an internal war.

Iraq, in this way, is more analagous to the American occupation of the Phillipines after the Spanish-American war. Indeed many people accuse the US of wanting to treat Iraq as part of an "Empire."

This is also a flawed analogy because the US has no intent of doing this.

Indeed the US is meeting far greater success in the internal war in Iraq than they did in Vietnam or the Phillipines.

Elements inside Iraq that seek to cause strife on the Iraqi people are being marganilized every day. However, the poor living conditions for a large portion of the people in Iraq are bringing new recruits to the most extreme organizations. A very few ruthless people can cause alot of damage.

The eventual solution to the Iraqi problems will have to come from within Iraq and the Iraqi people.

There are a couple of ways this can go down.

Some Options

1. The ICDC (or follow on force) will gain enough strength to handle internal security. At this point coalition forces will probably withdraw to the borders and provide external security until Iraqi forces can take over. A respected Iraqi government is a precursor for success.

2. The political will of the US to see this process through can falter. If US forces pull out you are looking at chaos unrivaled in the Middle East. And thats saying something.

3. A mixed bag. 3a. Coalition forces remain long enough to get a half decent government running. This government could fall in a few years causing the chaos of option two. 3b. It could be faced with such problems controlling the country that they clamp down with an iron fist.

4. Lengthy UN involvement. A process of takeing Iraqi soverignty from the coalition by the UN. This could end in succcess or failure mostly due to the bickering almost certain to take place between member states. To date the UN has shown neither the will or ability to take on such a mission. That could change if member states are willing to put boots on the ground and take casualties. Short of that will, don't wait for the blue helmets.

5. Outright power grab by Iraqi internal forces. Here we see a possibility that is analagous to Vietnam. Some situation like when Ngo Dien Diem was bumped off in 1963 and the RVN government changed hands. This power grab could be popular with Iraqis if they promise enough. However the chances are that any such grab would result in a 3b. Candidates for this power grab are Islamic extremists, former Bath party officials and the reconstituted Iraqi security forces.

Obviously this is a pretty brief list, but I think it covers the most likely outcomes. Personally I'm betting on a 3b no matter who wins the US presidential election.

As a matter of fact I see the office of the presidency as almost irrelevant to which of these outcomes we will experience, just like it was in Vietnam and the Phillipines.

The coalition ground commanders and Iraqi people have much more say about which road will be taken. All the president can do is try to get favorable UN resolutions passed and try to lend legitimacy to whatever Iraqi government gets formed.

The widespread hatred that has been bred of both president Bush and the coalition in general will make this much harder for the Iraqi people and the coalition.

To keep it all in perspective I ask myself a couple of questions from time to time. Someday my answers to these will change, as no situation is ever static.

1. Would Iraq be better off if coalition forces pulled out?

2. Would Iraq be better off if the insurgents stopped kiling people and blowing stuff up?

3. Would Iraq be better off if more countries put boots on the ground in support of coalition efforts?

4. Would Iraq be better off if the UN was willing to send back more staff and try to become more active in rebuilding?

5. Should the US put more troops on the ground?

6. Is Pabst better than Miller Lite?

OK so number 6 is basically about me, but the other questions are real. I would advise others to try these questions out for themselves, and to formulate their own defined questions. Ask yourself the same questions day after day and you may notice when a situation has changed, or when your question is no longer relative.

[stateofequilibrium]

I'm not saying you have to like George W. Bush just people shouldn't go around calling him a Nazi and comparing him to Saddam Hussein or Bin-Laden.

It's probably not the politest thing to do, no. But I disagree with the label of being "unpatriotic" when people are excrutiatingly distressed and upset with Bush and some of his decisions.

I mean, if someone came out with a poster celebrating dead American soldiers.. that could be called unpatriotic.

But with the way unpatriotism is being thrown around, you could go back to the Clinton era during his impeachment proceedings and call the whole thing unpatriotic as well because they're legally attacking the President and calling him a liar and *** fiend.

[Nizark]

Some things should be universal to Americans:

1) Support and give respect to the office of the President...not necessarily the man, only the office.

2) Support the troops regardless if it is a time of war or a peacekeeping mission. They signed up of their own free will and nobody forced them. For the 100+ (maybe more, I do not know) objectors, who decide not to fight/go into a war, even though they signed up for the military, there are the hundreds of thousands more who signed up and went to fight without bitching about it.

3) Hippies suck :D :D

Thank you good night

[Fargin]

Ouch double posts.

[Fargin]

I sure remember the support of the US presidency back in the Lewinsky days. Talk of lack of patriotism always make me think of Catch22, where soldiers are being forced to sing the national anthem and sign several pledges of allegiance in order to get a meal in the messhall.

I don't care much for words like patriotism or nationalism, but with rhetorics and ultimatums like: "Love it or leave it" or "You're either with or against us," I do understand where you're comming from.

You should always try to respect and understand your fellow humanbeings. Even your politicians, even your president, even your soldiers, even your opposing views, even your enemy and even your pows.

[Sayeret]

This essay I wrote was directed towards people who were so against the war they called the President a nazi and a war criminal please forget that I ever said anything about patriotism. I was trying to say that things like that would've never happened fifty years ago because even if people didn't like the President they didn't express it in such direspectful ways. Also a lot of people who are against what the President is doing are trying to do whatever is in their power to hurt his descision even if that means rooting for the enemy. For example recently I have seen a lot of people who support the Iraqi insurgents and terrorists because they are so against the war. Theres quite a difference between being against the war and going out holding signs which claim that Bush has killed more people than Saddam Hussein and thus is a war criminal.

[Fargin]

When left and right, democratcs and republicans are so far appart, things tend to get extreme. You'll have hippies on one side and nazis on the other. I see very few trying to reach an agreement or understanding over the middel of the political scene. Maybe because those who don't speak in capital letters drown in BS.

[OB Kenobi]

http://bloodforoil.org/
http://www.whitehouse.org/
http://stopwar.org.uk/
http://www.antiwar.com/
http://www.designaction.org/morelinks.html

If it wasn't for the "unpatriotic" people, you'd all have barcodes on your foreheads already.

[duck]

This essay I wrote was directed towards people who were so against the war they called the President a nazi and a war criminal please forget that I ever said anything about patriotism. I was trying to say that things like that would've never happened fifty years ago because even if people didn't like the President they didn't express it in such direspectful ways. Also a lot of people who are against what the President is doing are trying to do whatever is in their power to hurt his descision even if that means rooting for the enemy. For example recently I have seen a lot of people who support the Iraqi insurgents and terrorists because they are so against the war. Theres quite a difference between being against the war and going out holding signs which claim that Bush has killed more people than Saddam Hussein and thus is a war criminal.

Btw, how come you as a Patriot have such an interest in Israel and its military? Even your nick is Israeli military jargon.

[Secret Squirrel]

This essay I wrote was directed towards people who were so against the war they called the President a nazi and a war criminal please forget that I ever said anything about patriotism. I was trying to say that things like that would've never happened fifty years ago because even if people didn't like the President they didn't express it in such direspectful ways. Also a lot of people who are against what the President is doing are trying to do whatever is in their power to hurt his descision even if that means rooting for the enemy. For example recently I have seen a lot of people who support the Iraqi insurgents and terrorists because they are so against the war. Theres quite a difference between being against the war and going out holding signs which claim that Bush has killed more people than Saddam Hussein and thus is a war criminal.

1) how are you defining Nazi?

2)Of course nothing like this would have happened 50 years ago, but i believe you mentioned Japan during WWII (try 63 years ago). But you obviously know that WWII wasnt exactly a chosen war, neither because of Hitler's actions or Japan's necessity to rapidly expand. I'm sure you also remember 63 years ago Japanese citizens were put in interment camps...i just hope that doesnt happen again. When you hold up the past to support your argument, have a look around that past to see what exactly you're supporting.

3) who are these "a lot of people who support the insurgents"? Care to name names or just another sweeping generalization/conclusion based on nothing?

4) Again, seperate the troops from the President. The president put the troops in Iraq, now they have to fight his war and take care of themselves and delivery his "democracy". I support the troops, I think Bush wasnt justified in "his" war, and I hope to God it does work out...but i hope it works out for the troops and to hell with Bush.

[dacanadianbomb]

Since I am not american. I cant really vote to make a difference :-)

I wouldnt pay any attention to those morons who hold up those signs " Bush is a war criminal " " Yeah insurgents ".They cannot argue their points properly, obviously, or else they would speak it in a civilized manner, rather than holding up a sign. 95% of them have no clue what they are rooting for at all. And if they are convinced they know what they are rooting for 95% of the time its simple BS who were fabricated by some extreme moron.

American Patriot - Another qualified comment of yours. You have to get away from constantly trying to drop people in drawers, This little forum user is a communist, this one is a terrorists, this one is a Klinton kool-aid drinker. Widen your horizon about a inch or 100.

[Sayeret]

People please read what I wrote for my first post. This isn't about patriotic or unpatriotic contrary to the name. It was meant to talk about how people who disrespect their country so much, hurt their country. Please evreyone forget I ever wrote Unpatriotic, I meant unpatriotic is what the people who root for the enemy and things like that, so please stop asking me why your not patriotic because you don't support what the President says because I never said you weren't.

This posting has gone way off topic. I never meant it to be an argument about how so and so is patriotic even though they don't agree with the war. Like I said earlier it was aimed at people who are so against the war and the Presidents descisions that they cause problems for everyone else like block traffic and stand at potential bomb sites NOT people who just don't agree with what the President is doing.

[Sayeret]

Secret Squirrel I meant that the people who are so disrespectful to the President that they call him a war criminal and block traffic in order to try to get what they want are disrespectful and hurt the country. I am not talking about you and I think you can see that it hurts the country when people start blocking traffic.

[Secret Squirrel]

Secret Squirrel I meant that the people who are so disrespectful to the President that they call him a war criminal and block traffic in order to try to get what they want are disrespectful and hurt the country. I am not talking about you and I think you can see that it hurts the country when people start blocking traffic.

Whats worst, blocked traffic or an unneccesary war? You said comparing Iraq to Vietnam is wrong. However many members have pointed out how both conflicts can be compared. You suggested that people wouldnt do this when FDR decided to go to war against Japan. Again, members have pointed out that the U.S's involvement in WWII wasnt chosen; it was thrusted upon America. Also, Japanese citizens were placed in internment camps during WWII, thus comparing the pre-emptive/chosen Iraq war with a WORLD WAR isnt a fair comparison. You also said "If this war [the Iraqi war] had happened in 1940 or 1950 people would claim it was one of the best military victories ever but now for some reason now some a lot can't accept more than ten casualties in a war." Well the fact of the matter is that Saddam's party was placed in power with help from the U.S in the early 1970s (? not exactly sure on the date). Again, trying to compare this war to another time in history isnt justified. Moderates who were/are against the Iraqi war are against it (again, i cant speak for them all) because it was chosen based upon faulty intelligence, half truths and complete lies.

[Sayeret]

Read the first two things Nizark wrote that is all I am trying to say.

[Secret Squirrel]

Read the first two things Nizark wrote that is all I am trying to say.

why dont (or cant?) you respond to any of the posts instead of always trying to steer the thread down the narrow road that you want it on? The initial post is yours, people question it, but you havent really tried to defend your opinion. Or are you just consumed with trying to edit your initial post to try and garner the reaction you're looking for?

[Sayeret]

Secret Squirrel I am trying to edit my post because some people, you being one of them as misinterpretted what I was trying to say. I was not trying to say that Democrats or Liberals are unpatriotic. All I was trying to say is it hurts the war effort to do certain things. Forget that I ever said patriotic or unpatriotic if you noticed the only time I ever said it in my first post was the title, no where else but now you and the others have turned this into a flame war about the Gulf War. If you even read the first thing I posted you would see that I meant that people in all countries not just the United States need to show more respect to the descisions of their leader and I meant show more respect by not trying to do everything in your power to stop what he is trying to acheive, for example standing infront of potential bombsites. In regards to showing respect towards the President or Prime Minister all I meant is that you shouldn't call him a war criminal, a nazi, etc.

[Secret Squirrel]

Secret Squirrel I am trying to edit my post because some people, you being one of them as misinterpretted what I was trying to say. I was not trying to say that Democrats or Liberals are unpatriotic. All I was trying to say is it hurts the war effort to do certain things. Forget that I ever said patriotic or unpatriotic if you noticed the only time I ever said it in my first post was the title, no where else but now you and the others have turned this into a flame war about the Gulf War. If you even read the first thing I posted you would see that I meant that people in all countries not just the United States need to show more respect to the descisions of their leader and I meant show more respect by not trying to do everything in your power to stop what he is trying to acheive, for example standing infront of potential bombsites. In regards to showing respect towards the President or Prime Minister all I meant is that you shouldn't call him a war criminal, a nazi, etc.

1)What about the validity statements regarding Japan in WWII to present day Iraq?

2)Or the long list of comparisons between the Vietnam war and the Iraqi war?

3) "It's great that John Kerry fought in Vietnam and won a lot of medals but it doesn't give him the right to critize veterans of Vietnam who fought in the war" <--which comments by Kerry are you referring to?

4)"Even more hurtful than these things is when people stand infront of potential bombsites of their country to hurt the war effort." <---which potential bomb sites are you referring to? I assume the people you mean are the human shields or whatever they call themselves.

5)"sabotaging fuel which troops may use" <--this happened? I honestly never heard that one, is there a news report or story behind it? (i'm not suggesting that you're lying, just curious about this incident).

6) "If this war had happened in 1940 or 1950 people would claim it was one of the best military victories ever but now for some reason now some a lot can't accept more than ten casualties in a war." <---people cant accept good soldiers dying because of the lies Bush told the world.

7) "who are so disrespectful to the President that they call him names such as mass murderer and a war criminal" <---you mean like some of the comments people throw at Kerry? Should Bush be immune from opinions because Nader won the election for him?

8) "makes me think that people like John Kerry would be glad everytime the US makes a mistake like with Abu Ghraib." <--you really think Kerry was happy that the prison scandle occured? Or was he questioning the fact that had Bush not lied and taken the U.S into war, then none of this would have occured?

9)"Its funny that you say Bush is an idiot because you have never called Clinton an idiot for allowing the Al Qaeda to bomb the embassies and the USS Cole" <--i've called Clinton an idiot for stating that his administration has no "national interests in Rwanda" as an excuse for pulling troops.

10) "Kerry is doing that because he wants to show that the United States is getting into another war it will not win. He is not saying that it is similiar because the people the US is fighting are using guerilla tactics rather he is saying that the United States is getting stuck in Iraq like it did in Vietnam." <---last time i checked, the U.S deployment to Iraq is suppose to last through the end of 2005 with troop levels remaining at around 135,000. Honestly, can you conceive a future Iraq without U.S troops and U.S bases inside?

11) "For example recently I have seen a lot of people who support the Iraqi insurgents and terrorists because they are so against the war." <--who exactly are you referring to or is this just another sensational generalization which you hope will garner the responses that you want?

12) "Please evreyone forget I ever wrote Unpatriotic, I meant unpatriotic is what the people who root for the enemy and things like that, so please stop asking me why your not patriotic because you don't support what the President says because I never said you weren't" <---again, whos rooting for the enemy?

13) "If you even read the first thing I posted you would see that I meant that people in all countries not just the United States need to show more respect to the descisions of their leader and I meant show more respect by not trying to do everything in your power to stop what he is trying to acheive, for example standing infront of potential bombsites."<-- again, what bomb sites? Why do people have to respect the decisions of their leaders? That kind of blind faith is what caused most of the "black pasts" in history.

[Threelions]

People need to realize that even if they don't support every decision made by the President they need to respect him and the troops. (In other words not do everything in their means to hurt his descision). Some of the democratcs and liberals have begun to compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam, this is not just imature but direspectful to actual veterans of Vietnam. It's great that John Kerry fought in Vietnam and won a lot of medals but it doesn't give him the right to critize veterans of Vietnam who fought in the war. Even more hurtful than these things is when people stand infront of potential bombsites of their country to hurt the war effort. IMO it is okaey to not support the war but it isn't okaey to root for the enemy such as Michael Moore does and block traffic.


So you say that comparing vietnam to iraq is disrespectful and imature. And yet, bush is comparing iraq and "the war on terror" to WWII. Is that disrespectful and immature of him?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3771401.stm

Cheers[/quote]

[Sayeret]

Threelions,

Kerry is trying to show that Iraq is like Vietnam because he wants people to think that the United States will lose the war in Iraq just like they did in Vietnam. Bush compares Iraq to World War II because he trying to make people think that this is a global war like WWII and Iraq is just part of it. President Bush declares more things are to come while, John Kerry claims the United States is losing the war.

[Secret Squirrel]

Threelions,

Kerry is trying to show that Iraq is like Vietnam because he wants people to think that the United States will lose the war in Iraq just like they did in Vietnam. Bush compares Iraq to World War II because he trying to make people think that this is a global war like WWII and Iraq is just part of it. President Bush declares more things are to come while, John Kerry claims the United States is losing the war.

I put 13 points on the previous page, clearly outlined where i had questions regarding what you posted (ie. specific details regarding your "points")...any responses Sayeret? And find me a quote or something that says Kerry wants people to believe that the U.S will lose in Iraq. The comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq arent that far fetched. Or are you just sensationalizing again?

[Trigger]

Sayeret, I admire your persistence. But these guys are just arguing just for the sake of it. They'll never concede a single point to you. :|

[Tane Angle]

Do I count in that? p-) Actually, I think my posts were sort of skipped over. I tried to balance between both, honest. :D

[budanski]

Its already a given youre a looney, Tane. We respect our elders... ;)

Theres an interesting article from Mark Levin on NRO... A Familiar Place (http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200406011433.asp)

While the Werwolfs weren't as much a threat as the insurgents in Iraq, the situations are vastly different. The very fact that Germany signed a peace treaty formally ending the war was the most significant. While we can argue over the end to major combat operations, the fact remains that we are still at war with various factions within the country. In this respect..or any for that matter, casualties are still historically low.

[Tane Angle]

Nothing beats senility, my friend. :D

[Trigger]

Do I count in that? p-) Actually, I think my posts were sort of skipped over. I tried to balance between both, honest. :D
I think you know better than that :D

I was mostly referring to Mr. '300+ posts-in-three-weeks' ;)

[Secret Squirrel]

Its already a given youre a looney, Tane. We respect our elders... ;)

Theres an interesting article from Mark Levin on NRO... A Familiar Place (http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200406011433.asp)

While the Werwolfs weren't as much a threat as the insurgents in Iraq, the siutuations are vastly different. The very fact that Germany signed a peace treaty formally ending the war was the most significant. While we can argue over the end to major combat operations, the fact remains that we are still at war with various factions within the country. In this respect..or any for that matter, casualties are still historically low.

Post-war Germany was filled mostly with a male population that was physically and psychological damaged from 6 years of war, clearing the way for the "women of the rubble" to emerge. These sensationalized werewolves and their prowless and training before the war offical ended, ist even worth noting as most historians will only highlight a single act or two (one being assassinating the mayor of Aachen March 25, 1945, on Himmler's orders, which happened before the May 7 Nazi surrender at Reims). Simply put, there were no significant deaths by former regime members in post-war germany; there was no guerrilla war. Comparing that to Iraq where (I'm assuming) former regime members and soldiers blended back into the local populas(after a short conventional war) to re-group for the "real Iraq war", is just simply without merit. Occupations, just like decolonizations, may be the same in princple, but vastly different in reality.

[usa320]

Dont bother arguing with Duci... secret squirrel- thats his only purpose of being here is to argue with people and cause flame wars.

[Secret Squirrel]

Dont bother arguing with Duci... secret squirrel- thats his only purpose of being here is to argue with people and cause flame wars.

As i recall, you chose to offer insults at me rather than responding to points in another thread that you couldnt counter. Hope the irony isnt lost. rofl

[usa320]

Because your like a freaking STD...you are as annoying as hell and wont go away, no matter what people hit you with...

[Secret Squirrel]

Because your like a freaking STD...you are as annoying as hell and wont go away, no matter what people hit you with...

Nice of you to admit that you chose insults first because you couldnt counter my points. woot

[OB Kenobi]

Because your like a freaking STD...you are as annoying as hell and wont go away, no matter what people hit you with...

Nice of you to admit that you chose insults first because you couldnt counter my points. woot

That's it, it's settled. I officially declare Secret Squirrel the winner of this debate.

[Trigger]

You're right Ken00bi:
http://www.rancidkoolaid.com/images/arguing.jpg

[OB Kenobi]

You're right Ken00bi:
http://www.rancidkoolaid.com/images/arguing.jpg

Hey, I thought this was a respectable establishment? :P