Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

McTag wrote:

This has gone very quiet.

Has the blood-lust abated? Have the contributing neocons wiped the foam flecks from their lips?

Perhaps some have become a bit weary of the often shrill exaggerations of those who claim superior access to the higher planes of morality, and whose innocence is mostly the lack of relevant experience in life.

0 Replies

My shrill exaggerations, if you perceive any, are only made necessary by the extreme intransigence of the Bush diehards, and the extreme thicknes of the skulls I direct my remarks towards. Mostly. :wink:

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

McTag wrote:
This has gone very quiet.

Has the blood-lust abated? Have the contributing neocons wiped the foam flecks from their lips?

Perhaps some have become a bit weary of the often shrill exaggerations of those who claim superior access to the higher planes of morality, and whose innocence is mostly the lack of relevant experience in life.

Your "relevant experience", George, seems not to have given you much ability to see past your own blinkered existence.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Perhaps some have become a bit weary of the often shrill exaggerations of those who claim superior access to the higher planes of morality, and whose innocence is mostly the lack of relevant experience in life.

Wow. That was quite an interesting observation - because everyone will take it as a reference to the other side.

Maybe you should apply for a job as an ambassador, George.

Seriously.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Perhaps some have become a bit weary of the often shrill exaggerations of those who claim superior access to the higher planes of morality, and whose innocence is mostly the lack of relevant experience in life.

It's good to hear that you conservatives are beoming a little less shrill, more contemplative, and more self-critical. Wink

0 Replies

I am never shrill - What never? -- well, hardly ever! Laughing

(occasionally a little irritable, even angry, but never shrill).

I am the soul of contemplative self criticism.

I was responding to assertions that U.S. soldiers in Iraq are "cowards" because they make use of superior weapons, while the Islamist fighters are surely brave. Also that the U.S./U.K. use of artillery and aircraft make us the moral equivalent of those who plant bombs in police stations and crowded markets. THAT is shrill!

It is also offensive to those with some personal experience in such things. Perhaps something not easily explained to those without it, but no less real for that. The assertions were themselves foolish exaggerations, and the potential for offense was knowable to anyone who gave even a moment's thought to the matter.

old europe - I have never considered myself (nor am likely to have been considered by others who know me) as ambassadorial material. But, of course, that was your point.

0 Replies

georgeob, Nobody is talking about the tactics of fighting this war; both sides are guilty of atrocities.

What most of us resent are the Bush rhetoric that charged many Americans as enemies or unpatriotic because we had a difference of opinion about the justifications and management of this war.

He's responsible for everything that has happened thus far in Iraq, and he has the gall to tell democrats to shut up if they can't come up with any suggestions to get him out of this mess he created. He asked for suggestions, and ignored the commission's recommendations, and still has the balls to ask for more.

You can't fix stupid.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I was responding to assertions that U.S. soldiers in Iraq are "cowards" because they make use of superior weapons, while the Islamist fighters are surely brave. Also that the U.S./U.K. use of artillery and aircraft make us the moral equivalent of those who plant bombs in police stations and crowded markets. THAT is shrill!

Hey that is not what I said. Go back and read it if you don't believe me.

In that, I was responding to some suggestion that the adversary in the ME is cowardly. That is not helpful, nor accurate I think.

Sure, there is terrorist activity; as there was by Jews in Israel in 1947, and no doubt also by colonists around Boston, Mass in 1770. "Cowardly" is an unhelpful and inappropriate description, imo.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

I was responding to assertions that U.S. soldiers in Iraq are "cowards" because they make use of superior weapons, while the Islamist fighters are surely brave. Also that the U.S./U.K. use of artillery and aircraft make us the moral equivalent of those who plant bombs in police stations and crowded markets. THAT is shrill!

Hey that is not what I said. Go back and read it if you don't believe me.

In that, I was responding to some suggestion that the adversary in the ME is cowardly. That is not helpful, nor accurate I think.

Sure, there is terrorist activity; as there was by Jews in Israel in 1947, and no doubt also by colonists around Boston, Mass in 1770. "Cowardly" is an unhelpful and inappropriate description, imo.

You recoiled at the notion that the terrorists (who hide among women and children in an effort of self-preservation) were cowards, and said, "You could call the muslim fighters many things, but not, I think, cowards. You may as well conclude that the US forces are cowards, because they habitually call in airstrikes ..."

It seems clear you were calling US forces cowards because they call in airstrikes.

0 Replies

Tico, you of all people. You are usually very careful in your use of English.

The first sentence has a "not...."
The second sentence has a comparison "you may as well...."
Which in my book, is also qualified by the "not...."

But since we are back on this subject, it is my opinion that the invading forces mis-use air power and aerial bombardment. I'm remembering for example, when they were hunting for Saddam, they bombed on five or six separate occasions, houses where he was thought to be...but wasn't.
And these "houses" are not individual mansions. They are in village streets. Scores of innocents were killed.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Tico, you of all people. You are usually very careful in your use of English.

The first sentence has a "not...."
The second sentence has a comparison "you may as well...."
Which in my book, is also qualified by the "not...."

You said that if I am going to call muslims cowards (which you don't think they are), then I would have to call US forces cowards. Now, you might not have intended to say you think the US forces are cowards for calling in airstrikes, but if that was the case, you were less than clear.

In any event, George highlighted the mistaken logic you employed with your analogy. The terrorists demonstrate cowardice by hiding among women and children for self-preservation. As George explained, the US forces do not demonstrate cowardice by using air strikes. If you did not intend to call US forces cowards, then all George did was show your analogy to be false.

0 Replies

Or the inability to read proper English.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Or the inability to read proper English.

Was that supposed to mean something, Joe?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

McTag wrote:
Tico, you of all people. You are usually very careful in your use of English.

The first sentence has a "not...."
The second sentence has a comparison "you may as well...."
Which in my book, is also qualified by the "not...."

You said that if I am going to call muslims cowards (which you don't think they are), then I would have to call US forces cowards. Now, you might not have intended to say you think the US forces are cowards for calling in airstrikes, but if that was the case, you were less than clear.

In any event, George highlighted the mistaken logic you employed with your analogy. The terrorists demonstrate cowardice by hiding among women and children for self-preservation. As George explained, the US forces do not demonstrate cowardice by using air strikes. If you did not intend to call US forces cowards, then all George did was show your analogy to be false.

It is a tactic, and an overall philosophy, of the invading (high-tech armed) forces to bomb wherever possible, in order to minimise infantry casualties.
But this maximises civilian casualties.
A hard choice for the commanders to take. And I think , dishonourable.

But inevitable. And that's why I demonstrated against the invasion in the first place.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

It is a tactic, and an overall philosophy, of the invading (high-tech armed) forces to bomb wherever possible, in order to minimise infantry casualties.

Why do you suppose that's done?

0 Replies

So that the Administration do not meet with too much political disapproval to home.

Killing foreigners, even non-combatants, is more acceptable to the electorate than killing Americans.

0 Replies

I wonder how many Americans are likely to be in buildings where terrorists are believed to be hiding?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I wonder how many Americans are likely to be in buildings where terrorists are believed to be hiding?

I don't wonder that. I wonder why you mention that.

You mean it's okay to kill anyone who's not American?

(btw it's obfuscation to continually refer to "terrorists" when you mean muslim fighters.)

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I wonder how many Americans are likely to be in buildings where terrorists are believed to be hiding?

I don't wonder that. I wonder why you mention that.

You mean it's okay to kill anyone who's not American?

(btw it's obfuscation to continually refer to "terrorists" when you mean muslim fighters.)

You aren't that obtuse McTag. I mentioned that because it was your implication that if Americans were in those buildings, we wouldn't bomb them and/or that it is only because they were not Americans that we did bomb them. That has to be at least the second or third silliest thing you've said in this debate since this particular discussion was started.

By our President's definition, a terrorist is one who kills, maims, destroys, injures, murders people in order to terrorize other people to do their bidding. They do not care WHO they kill, maim, destroy, injure, or murder in the process or whether it is accomplished by their hand or by their enemy. Their targets are old men, women, kids, dogs, anybody and anything. If they kill, maim, and destroy enough, they believe they can force anybody who is left to do their will.

They hide among civilians and conduct their attacks from among civilians. Dead civilians are very useful to them because then they can point fingers at "atrocities" knowing full well that misguided and tunnel visioned liberals (like you) will blame the Americans et al and not them. They skillfully use the court of liberal world opinion to ensure that their enemy will not come after them full force and will finally just give up. They then rightfully claim victory plot their next terrorist campaign.

These "Muslim fighters" as you piously calll them are not defending themselves or their homeland and they certainly aren't defending the people they intentionally put in harms way. They are fighting for a fanatical ideal which is to force all--eventually the entire world-- to be under their power and authority. And they do not care how many millions are injured, killed, maimed, tortured, murdered in the process.

Americans don't think or operate like that. Americans try as best they can to avoid civilian causalties, they show mercy when they can, they rebuild any infrastructure they break as best they can. and when its over they go home. Muslim terrorists not only do not bother to replace what they destroy but they frequently force their subjects to do without it in the first place. When they win one "victory", they don't go home and put away their weapons. They plot their attack on their next victim.

Yes it is okay to bomb Muslim terrorists or any other terrorist. And yes, you'll have to look very hard to find any Americans or other free people among them. Historically, democracies do not make war on democracies. Some might think that human rights and personal freedom are therefore the prescription for world peace.

That's something the terrorists do not intend to allow to happen in Iraq.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

By our President's definition, a terrorist is one who kills, maims, destroys, injures, murders people in order to terrorize other people to do their bidding. They do not care WHO they kill, maim, destroy, injure, or murder in the process or whether it is accomplished by their hand or by their enemy. Their targets are old men, women, kids, dogs, anybody and anything. If they kill, maim, and destroy enough, they believe they can force anybody who is left to do their will.

Well, you have a definition in the Federal Criminal Code as well.

Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002331----000-.html

0 Replies

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know