To the pro-war camp

[theapportioner]

Let me couch this in terms you will appreciate more: would you want our troops to die, just to create yet another Latin American-style pseudo-democracy at best, or an Islamist theocracy at worst?

[theapportioner]

Come on! I want to hear from you guys.

[Ronnie Raygun]

First of all nobody wants troops to die so the entire premise of your question is flawed.

Second, freeing the Iraqi people is not our only reason for ousting Saddam. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction that he refused to give up or prove he destroyed. Security is the main issue.

Get it?

[theapportioner]

The security issue is a hoax -- even some of the pro-war people here have said as much.

That some troops will die, is implied in supporting the campaign. The sacrifice is acknowledged. But is it worth it?

[VinceZeb]

Your question is a typical loaded emotional question.

1) You assume that the people of Iraq could not have a democracy or a constitutional monarchy or anything better than your choices given above. So first, your question is invalid because as per a liberal, you only give half the info. I should also add it’s pretty damn arrogant that you believe that Iraqis can’t have a good govt.

2) I don’t want anyone to die except people who are evil. Our troops for the most part are not evil. Unfortunately, since I happen to live in reality and see the big picture, people sometimes die for good causes. If a country was threatening to attack us (Which N. Korea has now been) and the only thing to do would be to have a régime change, then so be it. We can not police the world, but we must protect ourselves, and if protecting ourselves mean policing part of the world, then so be it. I care about my family first and foremost. If my family is in danger, then I want bullets in the brains of whoever would put them in danger.

[Ronnie Raygun]

"The security issue is a hoax -- even some of the pro-war people here have said as much."

Who?

[theapportioner]

You assume that the people of Iraq could not have a democracy or a constitutional monarchy or anything better than your choices given above. So first, your question is invalid because as per a liberal, you only give half the info. I should also add it’s pretty damn arrogant that you believe that Iraqis can’t have a good govt.

Well if America has done a splendid job in the Middle East, why isn't it the shining epicenter of democracy and capitalism that it should be??? History, mon ami, history. Let history be your guide. As it stands now, we are only repeating it.

[Ronnie Raygun]

"The security issue is a hoax -- even some of the pro-war people here have said as much."

Who?

[theapportioner]

Rorschach, for one.

[Ronnie Raygun]

HAHAHAHAHA!

What does he know? Non of us are really in the loop.

Give me a source from an official who said that.

[ranxer]

The move to impeach bush is now both anti-war and pro-veterans..
wakeup bush supporters Bush is a Corporate Criminal robbing us every chance he gets! we will hold his administration accountable no matter what the press says, there will always be alternative voices speaking out. All we need is a few key whisltle blowers and the Bush administration will crumble like the house of cards it is.

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/article.asp?id=560

Washington - With hundreds of thousands of American troops poised for combat in Iraq, veterans groups are criticizing a budget plan expected on the House floor this week that would slash Veterans Affairs money by $15 billion in the next decade to help make room for President Bush's proposed tax cuts.

"Cutting already underfunded veterans' programs to offset the costs of tax cuts is indefensible and callous," said Edward R. Heath, national commander of the Disabled American Veterans. "It is unconscionable to cut benefits and services for disabled veterans at a time when we have thousands of our service members in harm's way."

The Republican plan, which the House Budget Committee adopted last week on a party-line vote, would chop $467 billion - 1 percent - from mandatory spending programs including the Veterans Affairs Department, Medicare and Medicaid in the next 10 years to offset $1.5 trillion in tax cuts the president proposes in the same period. The proposal also contains major increases in spending for defense programs and homeland security while achieving a balanced federal budget by 2010.

[Ronnie Raygun]

"YES! YES!

BUSH WANTS TO STARVE OLD PEOPLE AND SCHOOL CHILDREN TOO.

VOTE CASTRO!" - RANXER

[VinceZeb]

Yes, and they tried to impeach Reagan as well. Looks like the country was behind that as well, considering he won in the biggest landslide in election history.

RANXER! He has shown me the life! Althought more coporate greed is based on the democratic side, HE HAS SHOWN ME THE LIGHT! I want to move to Cuba or N. Korea right now, so I can starve to death and have my voice crushed by the police!

Ranxor, if you are in college, I would sue them pronto.

[ranxer]

um, shoot the messenger: :roll typical response
don't even read what veteransforcommonsense.org is saying cause i linked it eh?

ignore the truth, ignore the questions, ignore the voices not heard on fox/abc/nbc/cbs, they will just go away right? :/

[Ronnie Raygun]

CONSPIRACY! CONSPIRACY!

[ranxer]

ill agree that the bush administration has been talking conspiracy for months now!

[Ronnie Raygun]

Agree with yourself?

Or with....

....your commie anti-American buddies?

[ItalianStereotype]

christ ranxer, do you ever stop and just look at yourself? have you ever stopped to actually READ what you are posting? i mean, how can you dare speak against anything the bush administration has done when you commit the gravest error in politics everyday, you only allow for what the minority says is right.

i thought ror was against this war...but anyways, as has been said, nobody wants any soldiers to die, but in any conflict there is that risk. why does nobody else see that this is ultimately for the greater good? why is it so hard to understand that legally, we have the right to invade iraq again? its terribly frustrating...

[Ronnie Raygun]

They understand.

They just hate Bush.

[El Blanco]

You know, it has just occured to me. Ronnie and Ranxer are really just 2 sides of the same coin. Just look at their stuff.

[GAsux]

I'd rather not get into the specifics of the merits and consequences of war here because quite frankly in my opinion the matter is far too complex to be fairly addressed on a message board. It would lead to long winded marathon posts that no one would want to read anyway.

But I do want to say this. I would hope that the courtesy that I personally, and hopefully many others, extend to the anti war camp are returned to those of us who aren't oppossed to military intervention. That is to say that just as I would not arbitrarily condemn anyone who's anti-war as a left wing hippy fanatic, I would hope that i would not be automatically lbe abeled a conservative right wing zealot because of my opinion.

I'm a little oppossed to the term "pro-war". As an anti war activist, you reap the benefits of feeling like a benevelont humanist. If you support war, you are "pro-war", as if to say you relish the opportunity to engage in wanton death and destruction. I, as I would guess many others, and certainly a majority of those who are charged with carrying out such a war hardly enjoy it.

You will find many of the folks currently engaged in military operations will say they are thoroughly looking forward to going home and would probably quite frankly rather not fight. However, they believe that the good of the nation requires it, morally right or wrong, so they fight.

Anyhow, there ought to be a distinction for those of us who do not enjoy war, but have still come to the conclusion that it is an inevitable outcome in this case. All arguments aside, I personally hate being lumped into the flag waving, Lee Greenwood loving, "darkie" hating, war monger simply becauase I am not vehemently oppossed to this war.

[VinceZeb]

Yes, but why are people that are for this war automatically a bunch of racists redneck flag wavers, GAsux? Before you start whining about being sterotyped, dont sterotype others. It's not classy on your part.

[Anonymous]

"YES! YES!

BUSH WANTS TO STARVE OLD PEOPLE AND SCHOOL CHILDREN TOO.

VOTE CASTRO!" - RANXER
DID RONNIE JUST LIE?! :faint

[mburbank]

OH, MAN VINCE!! You are truly a priceless gem!

You are such a knee jerk reactionary you didn't even get that GA was writing!

" I would hope that the courtesy that I personally, and hopefully many others, extend to the anti war camp are returned to those of us who aren't oppossed to military intervention. That is to say that just as I would not arbitrarily condemn anyone who's anti-war as a left wing hippy fanatic, I would hope that i would not be automatically lbe abeled a conservative right wing zealot because of my opinion. "

GA is NOT OPPOSED TO MILITARY ACTION! He doesn't lable me a 'hippy fanatic" (or air headed bleeding heart pussy in your eliquent college employee lingo) and hopes I will not lable him a 'conservative right wing zealot'. He is actively calling for pople not to lable supporters of this war!

Which, by the way, GA, I certainly do not. But apparently you aren't 'classy' enough for Vince.

[ranxer]

how can you dare speak against anything the bush administration has done when you commit the gravest error in politics everyday, you only allow for what the minority says is right.

DARE? oh my. i'm speechless, dare to speak out? dare to disagree? as an american? as a human being? there's so many reasons to speak out against the bush administration i don't know how to answer that.

and i'm not sure how that could be a grave error.. i'm aware that my opinions and the folks that share them are not seen as popular unless you are at an anti-war/anti-bush rally or watching one from your lazy boy. and that when many of us speak up against tyranny we will get all manner of slander/hate speech thrown at us. the crap here is deep, i fall in too often..
this board is somewhat for outing tough opinions right? I'm freaking PISSED at GWB!! as an American i first believe in the rule of law, as it stands i am involved in public discourse to Change some of that law but for the most part i have no need to break any laws.. i leave room for jwalking, speeding once a blue moon, and maybe tresspassing to get a nice view from a water tower or something.

so dammit its MY RIGHT TO SPEAK OUT WHEN I THINK SOMEONE IS BREAKING THE LAW

AND I THINK GWB HAS BROKEN THE LAW IN THE GRAVEST FREAKING MANNERS!!!!!!!!!!!

ok, so i can also see how some can call me the oposite side of the same coin with ronnie.. :lol

don't move ronnie, i got ya right where i want you

hah, as if i had some kind of skill, pfft..:/


Faith in the troops / NO Faith in GWB










And yes i can understand how some of yall can freak on some of us and write us off as extreemists.

[VinceZeb]

Ranxer, you give the aura of someone that would argue with Christ during the Second Coming just because it was your "right to dissent". There is a big difference between dissent and being so open minded that you actually become close minded. If you want to be taken seriously as not being a socialist zealot, then I wouldn’t try to act like one. Then, if he starts shit, he has nothing backing up his claim.

I know what GA was saying, and I know he is FOR military action. So why don't you quit putting words in my mouth that I never said? I know it’s hard for you to use logic, but try it sometime. I am simply stating a fact: Don't lump people into a group if you don't want to be lumped. I also did not say he was not classy, I said something was not classy on his part. People with half a brain can see you don't have an argument, Max.

Yes, I work at a college, so what? It’s a private one, which means I have to be smart enough to make MONEY for my school so I can have my job. What do you do at your job, btw? You have such an infatuation with mine, so I would like to know what you do to make the world livable.

[Protoclown]

Ranxer, you give the aura of someone that would argue with Christ during the Second Coming just because it was your "right to dissent".

God grants that right in the Bible. It's called "free will".

[GAsux]

"Which, by the way, GA, I certainly do not. But apparently you aren't 'classy' enough for Vince."

Max, I appreciate that. i certainly didn't intend to cite anyone in particular, just a general observation.

As for Vincent's post, I'm really confused. I'm so confused by his post that it confused me about MY post! I thought what I was getting at was pretty clear. In fact, I thought it was obvious that i was saying that people who support war ARENT necessarily flag waving rednecks, any more than the anti war folks are bare footed hippies. I reread what I wrote several times in an attempt to understand where I went wrong, yet am not coming up with any answers. Apparently I not only lack class, but smarts as well.

[VinceZeb]

Yes, GAsux, keep taking things out of context. Man, give it the fuck up.


Ok, Proto, argue with the end all be all of existance, and see how far it gets you. Freedom of speech is not the most important thing in our society. Freedom of THOUGHT is.

[GAsux]

Your hostility amusses me. I believe you've mistaken this for an argument. I'm honestly not trying to argue with you. Quite the contrary, I'm simply trying to understand what the fuck you're talking about.

[VinceZeb]

*sigh*

I said what I said in the beginning because you came off as people giving you crap for being pro-war as it were, and then saying you didn't want to be associated with a certain group. I then said you shouldn't make groups if you don't want to be considered a part of them. It would not be classy on your part. Then max decided to be cute and blow it out of proportion and make it into something it isn't.

[Protoclown]

Ok, Proto, argue with the end all be all of existance, and see how far it gets you. Freedom of speech is not the most important thing in our society. Freedom of THOUGHT is.

Uhhhh...isn't that kind of what the "right to dissent" is all about? And I'm not saying it's a GOOD idea necessarily, just pointing out that the right to choose DOES exist.

[VinceZeb]

The right does exists, but people take it too far. They believe that no matter what happens, since they have this right, they should be able to use it whenever they so feel instead of STFU.

Thoughts are more important than speech will ever be. You can say whatever you want, but we are doing things within this country to PUNISH free speech and free thought.

Do you think a hate crime bill should be in law? Do you believe that we shouldn't profile anyone? If someone says something racists, should their be a law to put them in jail or punish them?

[Protoclown]

Do you think a hate crime bill should be in law?

I will seriously answer your questions, if you clarify what you mean. What kind of hate crime bill? What would it involve? That's kind of vague, don't you think?

Do you believe that we shouldn't profile anyone?

Again, be more specific. What kind of situation would warrant profiling someone? And for what purpose? Who would store and have access to such records?

If someone says something racists, should their be a law to put them in jail or punish them?

What, for simply expressing an opinion? Of course not.