Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

snood wrote:

Yeah, if you'd written it that way, your useage would've been correct. But you didn't. And it wasn't.

Yes I did, by inference, so it was.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Bullshit, McT. The hypocrisy is created in your own mind, formed by your bias against the Iraq War, molded by the anti-American crap you read daily. All McG did was post a picture of a US serviceman showing care and tenderness toward an Iraqi girl, which he and his medical company do every day. You cannot stand to see images of the good being done by American soldiers, and so you reacted the way you did. It offends you to think of American soldiers doing good, or that A2K members would post pictures of same. There's no "propaganda" here ... just images of the other side of the story ... the story you would just as soon not hear.

You are very selective. I have already answered this point. We need full disclosure here.

I am remarking on the fact of a person (McG) who has consistently and unequivocally over a long period of time supported military intervention in Iraq, an illegal and immoral invasion which has nothing to do with terrorist attacks on America, the invasion causing mutilation and death of countless tens of thousands of innocent civilians including children, showing a propaganda picture of an American serviceman comforting a wounded Iraqi child.

That is the hypocrisy, and the obscenity. The fact that somebody wants to help the child is a separate and unrelated issue.

Is that so hard for a Bush supporter to understand?

A Bush supporter may or may not understand the hypocrisy in a given situation, but it seems obvious that some on the Left are incapable of seeing any point of view but their own twisted, illogical, dishonest, bigoted, prejudiced, and hate filled rhetoric even as they try to justify it by claiming moral superiority.

You repeatedly refuse to acknowledged the hundreds of thousands--that's hundreds of thousands McTag--of Iraqi citizens who had been tortured, mutilated, maimed, and murdered by Saddam and his thugs, a process that was still ongoing, and which now is no longer an inevitable reality of their lives. You repeatedly refuse to acknowledge the tens of thousands who starved or died from neglect as a result of your beloved United Nation's sanctions that gave Saddam an additional way to brutalize the people. You repeatedly refuse to acknowledge that vicious terrorists are daily targeting Iraqi civilians, including children, in an attempt to deter them from their hope for freedom and self determination.

And then you condemn the USA for its efforts to correct all that and for treating the Iraqi people with decency and respect and expending their own blood and treasure to do it. You refuse to acknowledge that the vast majority of the US Military are protecting the Iraqi citizens as best as they can and many are doing direct hands on work in humanitarian efforts to help the people.

And then you criticize McG, who knows all that, and who properly directs his anger at the terrorists, and who posted a beautiful picture of a genuine act of kindness?

There's a huge hypocrisy here. But McG is not the one guilty of it.

0 Replies

OP US Democrat Nancy Pelosi would be more likely to pick up an M16 and enlist than deny President Bush the billions he needs to increase US involvement in Iraq.
The surge of 15,000 to 30,000 extra troops to Iraq reportedly favoured by Mr Bush is opposed by the new Democrat-controlled Congress and an estimated four in five Americans -- but despite tough talk from the Democrats yesterday, the President is certain to get his way.

The US Congress authorised the war that began in early 2003, and it would probably be illegal for it to now withhold the funds needed to continue the conflict, constitutional experts said yesterday.

Even if the Democrats had the power to block funding, the party's leaders would be unlikely to flex their new muscles over such an emotive issue.

In the run-up to next year's presidential elections, they would be labelled the party that abandoned US troops in the heat of battle.

Ms Pelosi yesterday indicated that Mr Bush would probably get what he wanted, but not without asking nicely.

"The American people and the Congress support those troops. We will not abandon them," Ms Pelosi said.

"But if the President wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it. And this is new for him, because up until now, the Republican Congress has given him a blank check with no oversight, no standards, no conditions, and we've gotten into this situation which is a war without end," she said.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21029454-663,00.html

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And then you criticize McG, who knows all that, and who properly directs his anger at the terrorists, and who posted a beautiful picture of a genuine act of kindness?

Now I would be interested what exactly that genuine act of kindness has been:
- that a Chief Master Sgt. of a Medical Groups takes personally care
or
- that the girl was treated in an US military hospital
or
- all of above?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And then you condemn the USA for its efforts to correct all that and for treating the Iraqi people with decency and respect and expending their own blood and treasure to do it. You refuse to acknowledge that the vast majority of the US Military are protecting the Iraqi citizens as best as they can and many are doing direct hands on work in humanitarian efforts to help the people.

I, personally, don't criticise the USA for that.

Of course, going into Iraq has never been a humanitarian intervention. Nobody ever called it a humanitarian intervention. Starving children in Iraq haven't been part of the picture until the insurgency had gained momentum - well after "mission accomplished".

I think what I fault the Bush adminstration most for is the poor planning of the post-"major combat operations" phase - which would be something like four weeks after the invasion.

Essentially, the USA permitted Iraq to descend into chaos. And that started right there in March or April 2003, when the first reports of looting crowds came in, and when all that was done by the US military was the protection of strategical points (like, for example, the ministry of oil) instead of maintaining the public order.

Seriously, what did the guys planning and those advocating the war think would happen once Saddam was beaten, the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police disbanded and a lot of the country's strategic infrastructure destroyed?

0 Replies

"Even if the Democrats had the power to block funding, the party's leaders would be unlikely to flex their new muscles over such an emotive issue.

In the run-up to next year's presidential elections, they would be labelled the party that abandoned US troops in the heat of battle. "

That's a fact. It'll take more than a declaration in Congress to clear up this mess.

0 Replies

Fox, I just have to say that your sig line is incredibly appropriate for you.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

McTag wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Bullshit, McT. The hypocrisy is created in your own mind, formed by your bias against the Iraq War, molded by the anti-American crap you read daily. All McG did was post a picture of a US serviceman showing care and tenderness toward an Iraqi girl, which he and his medical company do every day. You cannot stand to see images of the good being done by American soldiers, and so you reacted the way you did. It offends you to think of American soldiers doing good, or that A2K members would post pictures of same. There's no "propaganda" here ... just images of the other side of the story ... the story you would just as soon not hear.

You are very selective. I have already answered this point. We need full disclosure here.

I am remarking on the fact of a person (McG) who has consistently and unequivocally over a long period of time supported military intervention in Iraq, an illegal and immoral invasion which has nothing to do with terrorist attacks on America, the invasion causing mutilation and death of countless tens of thousands of innocent civilians including children, showing a propaganda picture of an American serviceman comforting a wounded Iraqi child.

That is the hypocrisy, and the obscenity. The fact that somebody wants to help the child is a separate and unrelated issue.

Is that so hard for a Bush supporter to understand?

A Bush supporter may or may not understand the hypocrisy in a given situation, but it seems obvious that some on the Left are incapable of seeing any point of view but their own twisted, illogical, dishonest, bigoted, prejudiced, and hate filled rhetoric even as they try to justify it by claiming moral superiority.

You repeatedly refuse to acknowledged the hundreds of thousands--that's hundreds of thousands McTag--of Iraqi citizens who had been tortured, mutilated, maimed, and murdered by Saddam and his thugs, a process that was still ongoing, and which now is no longer an inevitable reality of their lives. You repeatedly refuse to acknowledge the tens of thousands who starved or died from neglect as a result of your beloved United Nation's sanctions that gave Saddam an additional way to brutalize the people. You repeatedly refuse to acknowledge that vicious terrorists are daily targeting Iraqi civilians, including children, in an attempt to deter them from their hope for freedom and self determination.

And then you condemn the USA for its efforts to correct all that and for treating the Iraqi people with decency and respect and expending their own blood and treasure to do it. You refuse to acknowledge that the vast majority of the US Military are protecting the Iraqi citizens as best as they can and many are doing direct hands on work in humanitarian efforts to help the people.

And then you criticize McG, who knows all that, and who properly directs his anger at the terrorists, and who posted a beautiful picture of a genuine act of kindness?

There's a huge hypocrisy here. But McG is not the one guilty of it.

This is a very silly post.
No wonder blatham gave up on arguing with you people.

Let us not forget:

USA helped and funded Saddam during his murderous reign. So we certainly didn't go there to stop that.
Saddam was opposed to al-Qaida, which carried out the 9-11 attacks.
The invasion of Iraq was immoral and illegal.
Breakdown in public order followed as a direct result of the invasion.
The country has been smashed up as a consequence of the invasion and its aftermath.
More than 100 000 civilians are dead as a consequence also.
The lies which justifled the invasion were concocted in Washington, and London.

No amount of posting of "beautiful pictures" is going to change any of that.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
And then you condemn the USA for its efforts to correct all that and for treating the Iraqi people with decency and respect and expending their own blood and treasure to do it. You refuse to acknowledge that the vast majority of the US Military are protecting the Iraqi citizens as best as they can and many are doing direct hands on work in humanitarian efforts to help the people.

I, personally, don't criticise the USA for that.

Of course, going into Iraq has never been a humanitarian intervention. Nobody ever called it a humanitarian intervention. Starving children in Iraq haven't been part of the picture until the insurgency had gained momentum - well after "mission accomplished".

I think what I fault the Bush adminstration most for is the poor planning of the post-"major combat operations" phase - which would be something like four weeks after the invasion.

Essentially, the USA permitted Iraq to descend into chaos. And that started right there in March or April 2003, when the first reports of looting crowds came in, and when all that was done by the US military was the protection of strategical points (like, for example, the ministry of oil) instead of maintaining the public order.

Seriously, what did the guys planning and those advocating the war think would happen once Saddam was beaten, the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police disbanded and a lot of the country's strategic infrastructure destroyed?

It is true that the administration, all of the previous administration, the U.S. Congress, our military commanders, the UN, virtually every head of state in the free world, all Middle East nations believed Saddam had WMD and would use them and that's why the decision was made to go ahead and invade. Had he not thwarted the UN inspectors at every turn and if he had not been shooting the peace keepers guarding the no fly zones to protect the Kurds and Kuwait, it would never have happened.

So we got in there and most of the WMD had either been destroyed or moved though it was obvious to the 9/11 Commission, Duelfer and others that intent to resume development of WMD was in place as soon as Saddam was left on his own again. But in the immediate, WMD were no longer an issue.

But then we saw the tattered infrastructure, the malnourished children, and a people who had been so long terrorized and brutalized that they were no longer able to help themselves. And we rolled up our sleeves and went to work to help them. We witnessed first hand the tragic results of the UN sanctions and saw how inhumane it would have been to have continued them. They want personal freedoms and democracy and all the good things of life that we in the free world enjoy.

In the absence of Saddam who was no better than the terrorists, the terrorists set about to put the people under the thumb of the law of Sharia and that meant they could not be allowed to direct their own lives or have personal freedoms. And as it quickly became apparent that any form of democracy in Iraq was infectious and would likely catch on elsewhere, the terrorists converged on Iraq to prevent it from happening. That coupled with the vicious militant groups within Iraq, each abandoning the idea of a free nation in favor of attempts to grab the power for themselves, and you have the viciousness of terrorism demonstrated by outside terrorists aided and abetted by a relatively small number of homegrown terrorists.

So yes the mission changed, and the efforts now are both practical to make sure that the terrorists do not win which would only destablize the Middle East further as well as be detrimental to the world at large and the also to provide very real humanitarian and practical assistance to the good Iraqi people so they can become strong enough to resist the pressure from terrorist thugs.

The destroyed infrastructure was mostly due to Saddam, not the U.S. military and, as we have done in all wars we have won, we were perfectly willing to rebuild the stuff we broke. We are not only doing that, but starting from scratch in many areas where the people have never had it.

We did naively think this war would go better than any other war we have ever fought, at least those we intended to win. Though the loss of life in this one, both military and civilian, is miniscule compared to all the others, it is still war with all the setbacks, screw ups, errors in judgment, mistakes, and frustrations that have been inherent in all wars. And yes, tragedies too.

War itself is inhumane, stupid, and obscene. The only thing that would be more inhumane, stupid, and obscene is to allow the terrorists to win this one.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Fox, I just have to say that your sig line is incredibly appropriate for you.

If she took the road mentioned, shouldn't the word used be "diverged"? :wink:

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Fox, I just have to say that your sig line is incredibly appropriate for you.

If she took the road mentioned, shouldn't the word used be "diverged"? :wink:

That's exactly what I mean.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
McTag wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Bullshit, McT. The hypocrisy is created in your own mind, formed by your bias against the Iraq War, molded by the anti-American crap you read daily. All McG did was post a picture of a US serviceman showing care and tenderness toward an Iraqi girl, which he and his medical company do every day. You cannot stand to see images of the good being done by American soldiers, and so you reacted the way you did. It offends you to think of American soldiers doing good, or that A2K members would post pictures of same. There's no "propaganda" here ... just images of the other side of the story ... the story you would just as soon not hear.

You are very selective. I have already answered this point. We need full disclosure here.

I am remarking on the fact of a person (McG) who has consistently and unequivocally over a long period of time supported military intervention in Iraq, an illegal and immoral invasion which has nothing to do with terrorist attacks on America, the invasion causing mutilation and death of countless tens of thousands of innocent civilians including children, showing a propaganda picture of an American serviceman comforting a wounded Iraqi child.

That is the hypocrisy, and the obscenity. The fact that somebody wants to help the child is a separate and unrelated issue.

Is that so hard for a Bush supporter to understand?

A Bush supporter may or may not understand the hypocrisy in a given situation, but it seems obvious that some on the Left are incapable of seeing any point of view but their own twisted, illogical, dishonest, bigoted, prejudiced, and hate filled rhetoric even as they try to justify it by claiming moral superiority.

You repeatedly refuse to acknowledged the hundreds of thousands--that's hundreds of thousands McTag--of Iraqi citizens who had been tortured, mutilated, maimed, and murdered by Saddam and his thugs, a process that was still ongoing, and which now is no longer an inevitable reality of their lives. You repeatedly refuse to acknowledge the tens of thousands who starved or died from neglect as a result of your beloved United Nation's sanctions that gave Saddam an additional way to brutalize the people. You repeatedly refuse to acknowledge that vicious terrorists are daily targeting Iraqi civilians, including children, in an attempt to deter them from their hope for freedom and self determination.

And then you condemn the USA for its efforts to correct all that and for treating the Iraqi people with decency and respect and expending their own blood and treasure to do it. You refuse to acknowledge that the vast majority of the US Military are protecting the Iraqi citizens as best as they can and many are doing direct hands on work in humanitarian efforts to help the people.

And then you criticize McG, who knows all that, and who properly directs his anger at the terrorists, and who posted a beautiful picture of a genuine act of kindness?

There's a huge hypocrisy here. But McG is not the one guilty of it.

This is a very silly post.
No wonder blatham gave up on arguing with you people.

Let us not forget:

USA helped and funded Saddam during his murderous reign. So we certainly didn't go there to stop that.
Saddam was opposed to al-Qaida, which carried out the 9-11 attacks.
The invasion of Iraq was immoral and illegal.
Breakdown in public order followed as a direct result of the invasion.
The country has been smashed up as a consequence of the invasion and its aftermath.
More than 100 000 civilians are dead as a consequence also.
The lies which justifled the invasion were concocted in Washington, and London.

No amount of posting of "beautiful pictures" is going to change any of that.

If you and Blatham wish to see the worst in the USA, in the American people, the US military, the leadership, and me, that's your prerogative. It is also my prerogative to see that as the hypocritical, judgmental, sanctimonious, hateful, manufactured black hearted mindset that it is. I especially won't give any credibility to somebody who would condemn those who recognize and acknowledge an act of kindness and mercy when they see one.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Let us not forget:

USA helped and funded Saddam during his murderous reign. So we certainly didn't go there to stop that.

We had our reasons then.

Quote:

Saddam was opposed to al-Qaida, which carried out the 9-11 attacks.

Saddam supported and funded terrorism and terrorist organizations.

Quote:

The invasion of Iraq was immoral and illegal.

In your warped, meaningless opinion.

Quote:

Breakdown in public order followed as a direct result of the invasion.

Who knew the Iraqis would be so juvenile as to loot everything not tied in the void of local security? Can't blame the US for Iraqis being a backwards people devoid of the past culture they once had.

Quote:

The country has been smashed up as a consequence of the invasion and its aftermath.

Due to insurgent and terrorist activity, not by the US except where hunting down the insurgents and terrorists preying on the weak and undefended. Of course I wouldn't expect you to blame the terrorists. You are too busy kissing their ass here.

Quote:

More than 100 000 civilians are dead as a consequence also.
The lies which justifled the invasion were concocted in Washington, and London.

A number created by those that see only the worse possible. It's more like 59,000 and most have been a result of insurgent and terrorist activity. Again, I don't expect you to recognize that because you are too busy "blaming Bush".

Quote:

No amount of posting of "beautiful pictures" is going to change any of that.

Nope, sure isn't. But what it will do is stop the constant demonization of US forces by kooks like you that have nothing better to do but condemn US forces for trying to keep a country together after usurping a ruthless dictator.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

If you and Blatham wish to see the worst in the USA, in the American people, the US military, the leadership, and me, that's your prerogative. It is also my prerogative to see that as the hypocritical, judgmental, sanctimonious, hateful, manufactured black hearted mindset that it is. I especially won't give any credibility to somebody who would condemn those who recognize and acknowledge an act of kindness and mercy when they see one.

So you missed my point, then. Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
If you and Blatham wish to see the worst in the USA, in the American people, the US military, the leadership, and me, that's your prerogative. It is also my prerogative to see that as the hypocritical, judgmental, sanctimonious, hateful, manufactured black hearted mindset that it is. I especially won't give any credibility to somebody who would condemn those who recognize and acknowledge an act of kindness and mercy when they see one.

So you missed my point. then.

You see McTag, the invasion of Iraq was an act of kindness and mercy on the part of the US. It's just your hateful black heart that keeps you from seeing it for what it is: a helping hand, extended in the spirit of altruism, to the poor Iraqi people.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
If you and Blatham wish to see the worst in the USA, in the American people, the US military, the leadership, and me, that's your prerogative. It is also my prerogative to see that as the hypocritical, judgmental, sanctimonious, hateful, manufactured black hearted mindset that it is. I especially won't give any credibility to somebody who would condemn those who recognize and acknowledge an act of kindness and mercy when they see one.

So you missed my point, then.

I have addressed your point again and again and again and you consistently ignore it or call it silly. My point can be established with verifiable facts. You have only isolated anecdotal evidence for your point or the hypocritical, judgmental, sanctimonious, hateful, manufactured black hearted rhetoric of those who refuse to acknowledge the good in anything. And Blatham is one of them.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Bullshit, McT. The hypocrisy is created in your own mind, formed by your bias against the Iraq War, molded by the anti-American crap you read daily. All McG did was post a picture of a US serviceman showing care and tenderness toward an Iraqi girl, which he and his medical company do every day. You cannot stand to see images of the good being done by American soldiers, and so you reacted the way you did. It offends you to think of American soldiers doing good, or that A2K members would post pictures of same. There's no "propaganda" here ... just images of the other side of the story ... the story you would just as soon not hear.

You are very selective. I have already answered this point. We need full disclosure here.

I am remarking on the fact of a person (McG) who has consistently and unequivocally over a long period of time supported military intervention in Iraq, an illegal and immoral invasion which has nothing to do with terrorist attacks on America, the invasion causing mutilation and death of countless tens of thousands of innocent civilians including children, showing a propaganda picture of an American serviceman comforting a wounded Iraqi child.

That is the hypocrisy, and the obscenity. The fact that somebody wants to help the child is a separate and unrelated issue.

Is that so hard for a Bush supporter to understand?

What did you think you were newly "disclosing" in the above post? I understand fully you think showing a photograph of an American serviceman comforting a wounded Iraqi child is propaganda. That is because you view the US military as "evil." There is no doubt that had I posted that picture, you would have responded the same way, because my support of the Iraq War has been every bit as vocal and steadfast as McG's. Every single word of my prior post remains as valid as it was before you replied. You continue to swallow all of the anti-America swill put before you, and only occasionally come here to find your previously-held beliefs to be as wrong as you steadfastly believe them to be right. I believe you have admitted your tendency is to believe an anti-American story upon first read, without taking the time to assess its veracity. That is your default position -- mine is the opposite. I do not view the US military as "evil," and certainly do not view the posting of a photograph of a US serviceman doing "good" as anything but a presentation of the "other side of the story," ... news that is not being shown by the mainstream media because it is not "sexy," not interesting, or doesn't promote the media's agenda. For you to assert otherwise is nothing more that a demonstration of your bias.

And I note my question to you remains unanswered.

Ticomaya wrote:

So tell me .... what type of photos of US servicemen would you find "acceptable" for publication at A2K? Photos of them being injured by IEDs? Videos of them being targeted by sniper attack? Images of them eating Iraqi babies for dinner?

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
And then you criticize McG, who knows all that, and who properly directs his anger at the terrorists, and who posted a beautiful picture of a genuine act of kindness?

Now I would be interested what exactly that genuine act of kindness has been:
- that a Chief Master Sgt. of a Medical Groups takes personally care
or
- that the girl was treated in an US military hospital
or
- all of above?

All of the above.

Walter, you appear to be another A2K'er that would like for us to only discuss the actions of Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, and not the actions of Chief Master Sgt. John Gebhardt (from Wichita, KS, btw).

0 Replies

And to the critics, yes when I was having difficulty getting my sig line to take at all a few days ago, I retyped it several times and the board kept kicking it out. At some point I did use the wrong word. It is now fixed.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

This is a very silly post.
No wonder blatham gave up on arguing with you people.

Let us not forget:

USA helped and funded Saddam during his murderous reign. So we certainly didn't go there to stop that.

Do you think that -- in and of itself -- means we should not have stopped his murderous reign?

Quote:

Saddam was opposed to al-Qaida, which carried out the 9-11 attacks.

Saddam was a supporter of terrorism, without question. And the reasons for the invasion had NOTHING to do with Saddam's support or opposition to al Qaida. Have you read the AUMF?

Quote:

The invasion of Iraq was immoral and illegal.

On the contrary, the invasion of Iraq was necessary, justified, and long-overdue.

Quote:

Breakdown in public order followed as a direct result of the invasion.

Which was to be expected, IMO. That's what happens when you swat a hornets nest.

Quote:

The country has been smashed up as a consequence of the invasion and its aftermath.

Yes, and I put the blame on the insurgency. I realize you blame the Americans.

Quote:

More than 100 000 civilians are dead as a consequence also.

Blame here is with Saddam and the insurgency.

Quote:

The lies which justifled the invasion were concocted in Washington, and London.

No lies. Read the AUMF, and quit reading your anti-American rags.

Quote:

No amount of posting of "beautiful pictures" is going to change any of that.

No posting of pictures is going to change your deeply and strongly held biases against the US and its military. But in any case, we are entitled to post the side of the story you would prefer to not see.

0 Replies

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know