Anon-Voter wrote:timberlandko wrote:<chuckle> ... and Democrats wonder why The Electorate spurns them. They don't need opponents, they do fine at defeating themselves.
The Electorate split 51% to 49% in the Presidential race. That is hardly being spurned. Many of the seats won by the Republicans haven't been won by enough votes to spit at. Also, you must admit that DeLay was brilliant in picking up 5-6 seats in the House by successfully redistricting Texas 7-8 years early. Our Gropenator Ahnold tried it here in Ca. and got the effort shoved up his butt!
Anon
Quite right, Anon. That's no landslide, and no mandate for anything. There were more than enough Republicans fed up with Bush, even back then, to turn the election. So, what did you give us? A man who only had two planks to the platform. "Anybody but Bush", and a candidate that would agree with anything he thought would gain a vote.
So Timber was right. The Democrats did it to themselves. Come back with someone who stands for something, and we'll have a choice to make.
roger wrote:Quite right, Anon. That's no landslide, and no mandate for anything. There were more than enough Republicans fed up with Bush, even back then, to turn the election. So, what did you give us? A man who only had two planks to the platform. "Anybody but Bush", and a candidate that would agree with anything he thought would gain a vote.
So Timber was right. The Democrats did it to themselves. Come back with someone who stands for something, and we'll have a choice to make.
It's a shame, but you are right. I attended a fundraiser in SF for Kerry, which I put up more than a few bucks to attend. After talking to the man, I knew we were in trouble. As the campaign progressed, I found myself cringing when he opened his mouth!
Trouble is ... the massive damage has been done.We now have a fascist Supreme Court, and it will be for a long time. This was my main reason for trying to get rid of Bush. Now were screwed, and you're right ... it's the Democrats fault!!
Anon
Anon-Voter wrote:Timber,
I have great respect for you, but we are definitely diametrically opposed when it comes to this nation and it's reasons for going to war.
Anon
Sentiment acknowledged and reciprocated, Anon. Thats what makes it work, ain't it?
Well, that and the Electoral College
timberlandko wrote: He thinks differently than does Anderson, and so do I. One of the things my kid thinks about, and worries about, is that America might be persuaded to abandon the Iraqis just as she was persuded to abandon the Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians a generation ago.
That is, unfortunately, one of the problems with invading other nations. At some point, unless you kill them all and replace them with your own people, you will have to leave.
FreeDuck wrote:timberlandko wrote: He thinks differently than does Anderson, and so do I. One of the things my kid thinks about, and worries about, is that America might be persuaded to abandon the Iraqis just as she was persuded to abandon the Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians a generation ago.
That is, unfortunately, one of the problems with invading other nations. At some point, unless you kill them all and replace them with your own people, you will have to leave.
Poppycock - argumentum ad absurdam and false dillema/undistributed middle. In Iraq, a few thousand murderous thugs hold hostage a nation of millions. When the Iraqi people achieve the capacity to ensure their own security, to protect themselves from the thugs, there will be neither need for nor presence of an occupying security force. Had The US not abandoned Southeast Asia, Pol Pot's murderous thugs would not have had opportunity to perpetrate their atrocities. John Kerry's legacy? Look to
The Killing Fields.
John Kerry??? Try Richard Nixon.
timberlandko wrote:
Spurn and laugh at Anderson's thoughts? Not exactly - I spurn them, yes, but I don't laugh at them, I detest them. I laugh at those who eagerly swallow crap of the sort he spews, while wondering why they can't get their agenda accepted at the ballot box.
I could have sworn "chuckle" is synonymous with "laugh." But you don't laugh at all at those who disagree with your minority extreme views. You SAY you laugh at them. You don't. In reality, they upset you. You admitted that when you said you detest views that are opposite yours.
Timber,
Many thanks.
You expressed the sentiments of EVERY marine I know better then I ever could.
I served in Iraq,and I know the writer of the letter that started this thread is dead wrong.
When you said...
"I'm proud to have been a Marine, Charlie, and proud that my son is one today, and that my father was one before me, and his father before him ... The Corps is a family tradition in my little corner of the world. I'm proud to have served my country, and proud others in my family have had the same honor, and prouder still that honor has been under the Globe And Anchor. There are damned few Marines of whom I'm not proud, Charlie ... but you've made a place of notice on that short, ignoble list ... a little below Lee Harvey Oswald, perhaps, but right in there with John Murtha."
That expressed my sentiments much nore eloquently then I ever could.
The Corps has been part of my family history for as long as I can remember.
My dad,his brother,my moms brother,both my grandfathers,and most of my male ancestors.
When I joined the navy,it was with the express goal of becoming a corpsman with the marines,and thats what I did.
SEMPER FI!!!!
timberlandko wrote:FreeDuck wrote:timberlandko wrote: He thinks differently than does Anderson, and so do I. One of the things my kid thinks about, and worries about, is that America might be persuaded to abandon the Iraqis just as she was persuded to abandon the Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians a generation ago.
That is, unfortunately, one of the problems with invading other nations. At some point, unless you kill them all and replace them with your own people, you will have to leave.
Poppycock - argumentum ad absurdam and false dillema/undistributed middle.
Sounds like one hell of a football play, but otherwise just an absurd string of utterings.
Quote:In Iraq, a few thousand murderous thugs hold hostage a nation of millions. When the Iraqi people achieve the capacity to ensure their own security, to protect themselves from the thugs, there will be neither need for nor presence of an occupying security force. Had The US not abandoned Southeast Asia, Pol Pot's murderous thugs would not have had opportunity to perpetrate their atrocities. John Kerry's legacy? Look to
The Killing Fields.
I don't really give a **** about John Kerry, so you can please yourself with that bit of trivia. What part of my position do you disagree with? Can you invade a nation and not leave without settling the land with your own people?
Quote:Can you invade a nation and not leave without settling the land with your own people?
Lets see,we did it in Italy,Germany,and Japan.
With the exception of a few military bases,we invaded them,didnt leave,and didnt settle those countries with American immigrants.
So,the answer is yes.
mysteryman wrote:Lets see,we did it in Italy,Germany,and Japan.
With the exception of a few military bases,we invaded them,didnt leave,and didnt settle those countries with American immigrants.
So,the answer is yes.
I think those countries are under the impression that we've left. If you are saying that leaving permanent military bases all over the world is a viable third option (both leaving and staying), then I suppose you are correct.
So tell me,
What country have we invaded,accomplished our mission,and not left?
No, FD, not a football play, that "string of utterings" is a partial list of the logical flaws comprising your proposition, which, as that proposition was presented, self-invalidates, rendering not argument but absurdity. Learn more
Here .
As to what part of your position with which I disagree, I refer you to the above; you have stated no position but rather have parroted uninformed, illogical, afactual screed.
Absurdity is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. Like "blaming" John Kerry for Pol Pot. Look up absurdity in the dictionary and you will find timber's picture next to it.
Absurdity is arguing with a bunch of jar heads, Roxxxanne. Wonder if he looked up Pol Pot to see that John Kerry wasn't responsible?
Some people can rationalize anything. If you have been a soldier and have killed people, I guess you have to believe that what you were doing was right.
Some people can lie to themselves, and some become war protesters, because they perceive that what they were doing is wrong.
Governments will always come up with reasons for wars. Wars are profitable.
For those in the defense industry. And we know who they are.
So, America, give up your life for Bush and his cronies, so Halliburton can keep rebuilding buildings that were bombed by weapons supplied by the US to the Taliban in the 1980's.
Pol Pot got power because he was fighting against Lon Nol (spelling) who was the general put in by the CIA that overthrew the legitimate ruler of Cambodia-- because Cambodia would not join the US in a war against Vietnam.
Sound familiar?
timberlandko wrote:Here's something from a different Anderson:
Quote:U.S. Soldier to America: "Don't Let a Bunch of Whiny, Marxist Sycophants Lose This Thing"
Posted by
Dave Pierre on February 7, 2006 - 23:19.
Popular radio talk-show host
Laura Ingraham is broadcasting from Iraq this week, and she has spent quite a bit of time talking with our fine troops.
On today's show (Tuesday, February 7, 2006), Laura talked with Major Doug Anderson, from Fairbanks, Alaska, and he had some words for those of us back home (audiotape on file):
"To the American people, I just wanted to say:
Don't let a bunch of whiny, Marxist sycophants back home lose this thing."
Laura (in addition to countless listeners also, I'm sure) let out a loud "Yes!"
Amen! Thank you, Major Anderson! As we've seen in the past (
Remember this?), sometimes when you give a soldier the mike, you will hear the truth!
God bless our brave men and women.
Anyone describing American antiwar folk as
a: necessarily "left"
b: "Whiny Marxist sycophants"
marks themselves as so ignorant and stupid that anything else they say ought to be regarded with so much supicion as to render any further utterance prima facie unbelievable.
To quote such nonsensical and brainless propaganda, apparently seriously, while labelling the words in the comments leading this thread as you have done, Timber, is hypocrisy of positively Brobdingnagian proportions.
timberlandko wrote: What do I know about Iraq, as I haven't been there? What I know comes largely not from The Media nor the enemy's propagandists, but from relatives, freinds, and acquaintences formerly and currently on the ground in Iraq - and in Afghanistan as well, people with whom I am in more or less daily contact, people who range from lower enlisted ranks through Staff Grade Officers, and who include as well several civilians, people who's honor, honesty and accuracy I trust.
Timberlandko: My info on Iraq does NOT come from the media nor the enemy's propagandists. It comes directly from my propagandists. And I trust them.
Duuuuh.
timberlandko wrote:
I'm proud to have been a Marine, Charlie, and proud that my son is one today, and that my father was one before me, and his father before him ... .
I knew it, I juuuuust knew it!
And Timber would have us believe that his is a balanced view.
Next comes the offer for some swamp land or maybe a bridge or two, too far. Four generations of "turn off your brain, son and do as I say".
