# The Few. The Proud.



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

And here's your $2,000. Sorry.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC,

Your disgusting nonsense continues I see.

Funny that you decide to attack the USMC on VE Day. Civilian casaulties are unfortunate BUT they are not official US military policy. In fact we probably suffer more military casualties bc of the extensive efforts undertaken to avoid civilian casaulties by the US military.

The USMC has accepted responsbility, apologized and paid damages. While $2000 USD seems a paltry amount it is a small fortune in Afghanistan and the amount paid in damages might already be stipulated in a Forces Agreement between the US and Afghanistan.

Someone as miserable as you might choose to ignore the debt all Americans and much of the free world owes the USMC but most of us do not.

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> FrankDC,
> 
> Your disgusting nonsense continues I see.
> 
> ...


So $2000 a head and an apology is the going rate for cold-blooded massacre of innocent civilians? Talk about disgusting nonsense. Where I come from this is called murder, but at least the families were paid damages (unlike 30,000+ families in Iraq).


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Please don't feed the trolls.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

fenway said:


> Please don't feed the trolls.


Troll? No, that's just your conscience kicking in.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

This is some evil nonsense here:

Nicholson said the payments were "essentially a symbol of our sympathy to them" and "a way of expressing our genuine condolences over the incident occurring."


Utterly vile notion to equate qualitative and quantitative values. Maybe if you make the stack tall enough mommy comes home. Really sickening logic from what would appear to be an increasingly money-mad civilisation.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Hits REWIND button on VCR, hits STOP and hits PLAY. Jack Nicholson in Marine greens is on the stand. While Jack is delivering his now classic speech may I make one small observation? Many of the forum members here have a wide, often eclectic range of political views. Most of those individuals arrived at their personal world view from life experiences; military service,travel, academics, witnessing history in different lands and cultures or mores passed on by family members who did. For better or worse, right or wrong they all walked the walk on the world stage. And then there are those, who sit in the dark theater of life, feet up on the backrest in front, slurping on their 32 oz Doctor Peppers condemning the Jack Nicholsons and hoping the lights come on promptly so they can find the exit again.. SEMPER FI!


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

BertieW, Anyone who has made a study of Afghanistan and nearby regions recognises financial compensation for killings is an ancient custom, theirs, not the DoD.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

Kav said:


> BertieW, Anyone who has made a study of Afghanistan and nearby regions recognises financial compensation for killings is an ancient custom, theirs, not the DoD.


True. I believe that the Arabic term for such a payment is _diyat_.

The payment of _wergild_ is also an ancient custom of _ours_ -- an important part of Anglo-Saxon common law -- so to suggest that financial compensation for the families of murdered people is an "evil" symptom of an "increasingly money-mad civilisation" is to display a shocking lack of historical perspective.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> True. I believe that the Arabic term for such a payment is _diyat_.
> 
> The payment of _wergild_ is also an ancient custom of _ours_ -- an important part of Anglo-Saxon common law -- so to suggest that financial compensation for the families of murdered people is an "evil" symptom of an "increasingly money-mad civilisation" is to display a shocking lack of historical perspective.


I don't give a **** if it's a historical custom. I'm aware of that. It's still evil nonsense.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

BertieW said:


> I don't give a **** if it's a historical custom.


Please calm down. 



> I'm aware of that. It's still evil nonsense.


You're clearly welcome to your opinion, but you should note that while it is certainly true that no amount of monetary compensation can bring back the dead or erase the pain of losing a loved one, a bit of money certainly helps to pay the expense of providing them a funeral and offsetting the family's loss of income.

There's nothing "evil" about that. As a matter of fact, it seems like the right thing to do under the circumstances.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> Please calm down.
> 
> You're clearly welcome to your opinion, but you should note that while it is certainly true that no amount of monetary compensation can bring back the dead or erase the pain of losing a loved one, a bit of money certainly helps to pay the expense of providing them a funeral and offsetting the family's loss of income.
> 
> There's nothing "evil" about that. As a matter of fact, it seems like the right thing to do under the circumstances.


No, the right thing to do would be refraining from murdering innocent people. If you can't see that, I can't help you.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Seems to me like he said and did all he could.



> "The people are the center of gravity here, so, first and foremost in all that we do, we seek to do no harm to the people," Nicholson said. "So events such as that do set us back with the population, and they have to be addressed very directly and forthrightly with the Afghan people."
> 
> Nicholson said that he met with the families to explain that the United States goes to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties, and that he read a statement expressing regret and asking for forgiveness. Solatia payments of about $2,000 are fairly standard in Iraq and Afghanistan when commanders believe U.S. troops are responsible for civilian deaths or damage to civilian buildings; they are not legal admissions of guilt or a crime, but instead are intended as signs of goodwill in war zones where the enemy is often hard to distinguish from the innocent.
> 
> "We are filled with grief and sadness at the death of any Afghan, but the death and wounding of innocent Afghans at the hand of Americans is a stain on our honor and on the memory of the many Americans who have died defending Afghanistan and the Afghan people," Nicholson read from the statement. "This was a terrible, terrible mistake."


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Of course it's nonsense. Warfare by it's very nature is the cessation of all that is good in humanity. So what alternatives can we come up with? Maybe fly in the PETA people caught euthanising dogs and under the direction of that Berkeley Welfare Mom first execute the Marines en mass and then, mimicking Soviet wheat harvest propaganda films help bring in the record poppy crop while being filmed by the Bowling for Columbine crew with music produced by Phil Spector?


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

BertieW said:


> No, the right thing to do would be refraining from murdering innocent people. If you can't see that, I can't help you.


I certainly wouldn't argue against that. Still, it happened.

The Marine Corps is investigating the incident and providing some financial compensation to the victims' families. That is not "evil"; it's the right thing to do. If you can't see that, then no one can help you.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> And here's your $2,000. Sorry.


That would be $2000 a piece more than the Taliban paid the families of the victims of 9/11.

BertieW:

"No, the right thing to do would be refraining from murdering innocent people."

I am quite certain the families of the 9/11 victims agree with you completely.

"It's still evil nonsense."

Now if you could just get those pesky terrorists to go along.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Bertie, We can debate over this with any number of fatiqued agruments and strategems. Was this a awful event? Of course it was. What are our options? Should we immediately withdraw and exchange our horror for that of the Taliban? Should we bring Peter Graves and his M.I. team out of retirement and actually get that 6'6 crippled creep and send his head pickled in 3.2 Coors to Riyadh and the bin laden family? Should we just continue in our slow social exaustion matching that of military equippment and personel? I think everyone is open to new suggestions.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Kav said:


> Bertie, We can debate over this with any number of fatiqued agruments and strategems. Was this a awful event? Of course it was. What are our options? Should we immediately withdraw and exchange our horror for that of the Taliban?


No. It should (and hopefully will) be handled like any other mass murder.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

FrankDC, BertieW...have either of you ever worn a uniform; have you ever been in combat, shot at, wounded by enemy fire or tried to provide comfort to to a friend who has and who eventually dies...lying there in the dirt? The incidents described in the referrenced article are indeed atrocious, if proven to be true... and an investigation has yet to determine that...but, you both seem so willing, indeed eager, to find fault with and condemn this great nation and the institutions that have contributed to it's greatness, the Marine Corps being but one of those institutions. 

One of our Country's greatest leaders, the late General Daniel "Chappie" James once said, "America is my Country and I love her dearly! I will defend Her against all who would would attack (condemn) Her and if she is ill, I will hold her head and nurse her well..for She is my Country and I love her!" Perhaps at some point each of you might consider taking a moment to say thanks to those who have laid it all on the line, throughout our Nations history, to make it possible to express your opinions so freely and so bluntly.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> FrankDC, BertieW...have either of you ever worn a uniform; have you ever been in combat, shot at, wounded by enemy fire or tried to provide comfort to to a friend who has and who eventually dies...lying there in the dirt? The incidents described in the referrenced article are indeed atrocious, if proven to be true... and an investigation has yet to determine that...but, you both seem so willing, indeed eager, to find fault with and condemn this great nation and the institutions that have contributed to it's greatness, the Marine Corps being but one of those institutions.
> 
> One of our Country's greatest leaders, the late General Daniel "Chappie" James once said, "America is my Country and I love her dearly! I will defend Her against all who would would attack (condemn) Her and if she is ill, I will hold her head and nurse her well..for She is my Country and I love her!" Perhaps at some point each of you might consider taking a moment to say thanks to those who have laid it all on the line, throughout our Nations history, to make it possible to express your opinions so freely and so bluntly.


First of all, the topic of this thread has absolutely nothing to do with patriotism or support of our military. Apparently the investigation has already progressed to the point where our military officials are issuing official apologies and offering restitution for those who were murdered. So it's a bit disingenuous to claim anyone is being hasty or eager to judge.

Second, your claim that condemnation of this act somehow equates to a condemnation of our country is absurd. If you can find a way to justify the actions of these Marines, or are even willing to make excuses for them, you've lowered our military to the same moral cesspool as al Qaeda, i.e. the random mass murder of innocent civilians. Personally I can't think of anything more egregious and less patriotic.

I've explained my views on U.S. deployment of our armed services since WWII elsewhere on this forum, numerous times.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> First of all, the topic of this thread has absolutely nothing to do with patriotism or support of our military. Apparently the investigation has already progressed to the point where our military officials are issuing official apologies and offering restitution for those who were murdered. So it's a bit disingenuous to claim anyone is being hasty or eager to judge.
> 
> Second, your claim that condemnation of this act somehow equates to a condemnation of our country is absurd. If you can find a way to justify the actions of these Marines, or are even willing to make excuses for them, you've lowered our military to the same moral cesspool as al Qaeda, i.e. the random mass murder of innocent civilians. Personally I can't think of anything more egregious and less patriotic.
> 
> I've explained my views on U.S. deployment of our armed services since WWII elsewhere on this forum, numerous times.


I think what people take issue with Frank and Bertie is that your both so quick to condemn and ridicule those that make broad generalizations about the Moslem world and its people but on the other hand don't think twice about doing the same against your own military personnel (the title of this thread comes to mind). Many, including myself, find it downright disgusting.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> First of all, the topic of this thread has absolutely nothing to do with patriotism or support of our military.


OK Frank, I obviously misunderstood your intent when you titled the thread "The Few, the Proud" and followed up with a link to the referrenced article, to include your synopsis of the article..."And here's your $2000. Sorry!" Frankly it does not come off as an endorsement of the Corps or the Nation. The very institutions that you ridicule are holding those suicide bombers at bay and keeping them from delivering thier "gift wrapped" explosives to your doorstep.

BTW, I reviewed quite a number of your posts and found nothing to indicate your endorsement of any action(s) our Nation has taken or anything we stand for. Some just prefer to pay thier mere pittance for the "cheap seats" and sit making a lot of noise but, avoid getting involved and getting their hands dirty doing the heavy lifting. We should all ask ourselves, "what have I done to cure Her ills and make this Country a better place!"


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> OK Frank, I obviously misunderstood your intent when you titled the thread "The Few, the Proud" and followed up with a link to the referrenced article, to include your synopsis of the article..."And here's your $2000. Sorry!" Frankly it does not come off as an endorsement of the Corps or the Nation. The very institutions that you ridicule are holding those suicide bombers at bay and keeping them from delivering thier "gift wrapped" explosives to your doorstep.
> 
> BTW, I reviewed quite a number of your posts and found nothing to indicate your endorsement of any action(s) our Nation has taken or anything we stand for. Some just prefer to pay thier mere pittance for the "cheap seats" and sit making a lot of noise but, avoid getting involved and getting their hands dirty doing the heavy lifting. We should all ask ourselves, "what have I done to cure Her ills and make this Country a better place!"


I agree, the title and first comment appear to be just mocking the U.S. Marine Corp. At least, that was my perception. Of course, as a libertarian I support the right to suicide!


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I agree, the title and first comment appear to be just mocking the U.S. Marine Corp. At least, that was my perception. Of course, as a libertarian I support the right to suicide!


Mine too


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

I am saddened to say that in the events of my life I have stood and gazed down on such a tangled, putrescent mass of human flesh as would forever sear the nightmare visions of the most jaded mind and cause even the most hardened heart to pour open.

If "evil" exists, I have probably seen it. I have at times thought that I have felt its steely caress and the chill of its icy breath on my neck, but I cannot be certain that in my limited capacity for understanding I am qualified to pass judgement on what is entirely "good" and what is entirely "evil".

I am fairly certain, however, that "evil" is not personified by a fatigued and frightened nineteen year-old farm kid who, having just seen his best friend ripped in half by a roadside bomb, lashes out at those he believes to be responsible. By the grace of God I was not there to witness the events of that day, so I cannot pass judgement on its participants; I cannot condemn them as "evil" men, nor shall I trust in the Washington Post or any other newspaper to identify that which is right and that which is wrong.

For that matter, in discerning the narrow thread between right and wrong, good and "evil", I shall likewise not rely on the judgement of intellectually-lightweight bong-hit philosophers whose entire _Weltanschauungen_ are sculpted more by _The Daily Show_ and _The Evils of Western Imperialism 101_ than by any real-world experience that would allow them to righteously pass judgement on people who were placed in a situation these moral busybodies could never understand.

Oh, and that they should, in their self-righteousness, quote the Scripture in order to condemn others as hypocrites! How they themselves must have forgotten Christ's exhortation on the Mount:

_Judge not, that ye be not judged.

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye._


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I have never been in the armed forces, but I'm inclined to err on the side of the soldier who has a horrible decision to make in the middle of a horrible circumstance.

If the military decides there was a problem, let the soldier be punished then.

The military does seem to be able to punish criminals, although there is a curious lapse in the Pat Tillman situation.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I was at Louisville attending the big Saddlebred show. We were in the hotelroom between events. My California group was almost predictable; two gay men of old eastcoast money, my avowed communist but social climbing english professor, a trainer rapidly destroying his career drinking and myself. THE WAY WE WERE was on the TEEVEE. Striesand had just ruined the party, alienated her friends and Redford over a joke made about Eleanor Roosevelt. I saw that scene and realised I was with a not dissimilar grim and humorless crowd. Frank, your Striesand. It doesn't matter if your 'right' about something. Your making the same mistake so many others have on this forum. Those people become tiresome, drop away, FAIL in influencing others, become Mu-em-or-ies. Get a clue.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

And so the killing will go on and on until the end of time, with apologists and maniacs on all sides (including, most certainly, the black-hearted Al-qaeda lot) aiding and abetting the process.

Scripture? We can quote it all day to suit our purposes. There's enough material in there to serve racists and saints. I like it country simple: Those 10 Commandments so many friends of the current administration would like placed on public display? One of them says Thou Shalt Not Kill. 

But then again, the Bible says an eye for an eye, so we all live our lives as we deem best, choosing what we hope is the best path.

You guys have a great day.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Whether we should be in Iraq in the first place is a debatable issue to be sure.

I just think we need to give the military the benefit of the doubt once they are there.

Political leaders decided to put them there; they did not make this decision themselves (although I'm sure they had input.)

Blame the political leaders, not the soldiers.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

BertieW said:


> And so the killing will go on and on until the end of time, with apologists and maniacs on all sides (including, most certainly, the black-hearted Al-qaeda lot) aiding and abetting the process.
> 
> Scripture? We can quote it all day to suit our purposes. There's enough material in there to serve racists and saints. I like it country simple: Those 10 Commandments so many friends of the current administration would like placed on public display? One of them says Thou Shalt Not Kill.
> 
> ...


Actually, the Bible does not say, "an eye for an eye." 
Jesus says in Matthew 5:38-42, _38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you._


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

BertieW, In a perfect world even the bearskin hat and white crossed danish guards in Copenhagen would be unthinkable. And less anyone think this insult, those guards exchanged fire with invading Nazi troops. We don't live in such a world. The alternative would be a paralyzing inertia just as horrid. Take a deep breath. Nobody wanted such a event to happen, least of all those marines with the luxury of monday morning retrospection. PAX


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I was going to throw my 1/2 cent into this but I think Jolly Roger said how I feel much more eloquently than I ever could.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

Jolly Roger and Kav, wonderful posts.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> If "evil" exists, I have probably seen it. I have at times thought that I have felt its steely caress and the chill of its icy breath on my neck, but I cannot be certain that in my limited capacity for understanding I am qualified to pass judgement on what is entirely "good" and what is entirely "evil".
> 
> I am fairly certain, however, that "evil" is not personified by a fatigued and frightened nineteen year-old farm kid who, having just seen his best friend ripped in half by a roadside bomb, lashes out at those he believes to be responsible. By the grace of God I was not there to witness the events of that day, so I cannot pass judgement on its participants; I cannot condemn them as "evil" men, nor shall I trust in the Washington Post or any other newspaper to identify that which is right and that which is wrong.


First of all this wasn't "a" kid. It was at least several and probably more. The entire company of Marines was relocated to Kuwait and South Carolina after the attack, out of fear of reprisals from the local population.

Second, if you're going to reserve judgment on what these Marines did, at least have the moral fortitude to acknowledge why Afghan and Iraqi "insurgents" (known locally as "patriots" by the respective populations) are attacking our sons and daughters in the first place. Apparently you don't have the same wondrous latitude in judgment e.g. for the families of THIRTY THOUSAND Iraqi civilians who've had members ripped in half by Mr. Bush's bombs.

Simply astonishing hypocrisy, and about as genuinely evil as anything I've ever encountered.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Simply astonishing hypocrisy, and about as genuinely evil as anything I've ever encountered.


Similar to your threads.

Actually, I might be a bit overdoing it. I don't think you're _that_ evil. Just awfully self righteous.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I agree, the title and first comment appear to be just mocking the U.S. Marine Corp. At least, that was my perception. Of course, as a libertarian I support the right to suicide!


Ksinc: Thanks for the chuckle! I agree with your implied conclusion...Given the option of pi**ing off a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine, Im pretty certain I won't be choosing the Marine...those Dudes are seriously "hardcore!"


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Apparently the investigation has already progressed to the point where our military officials are issuing official apologies and offering restitution for those who were murdered. So it's a bit disingenuous to claim anyone is being hasty or eager to judge.


"Col. John Nicholson said he apologized to a group of Afghan people in the eastern Nangahar province on behalf of the U.S. government and delivered solatia payments of approximately $2,000 to the families of 19 innocent civilians who died as a result of the March 4 attacks. Speaking to reporters at via a video feed from Afghanistan yesterday, Nicholson said the payments were "essentially a symbol of our sympathy to them" and "a way of expressing our genuine condolences over the incident occurring."

"Nicholson said that he met with the families to explain that the goes to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties, and that he read a statement expressing regret and asking for forgiveness. Solatia payments of about $2,000 are fairly standard in and Afghanistan when commanders believe U.S. troops are responsible for civilian deaths or damage to civilian buildings; they are not legal admissions of guilt or a crime, but instead are intended as signs of goodwill in war zones where the enemy is often hard to distinguish from the innocent."

" . . . they are not legal admissions of guilt or a crime, but instead are intended as signs of goodwill in war zones where the enemy is often hard to distinguish from the innocent."

I have no problem with someone I vehemently disagree with giving their opinion on any subject. That is the American way. I do have a problem with people suggesting their opinion is fact and using it to forward an obvious agenda.

It is NOT "disingenuous to claim anyone is being hasty or eager to judge," FrankDC, when they make such repugnant statements as "our military officials are issuing official apologies and offering restitution for those who were *murdered*." YOU are the one characterizing the actions of the Marines as murder, not the US military. The military has only acknowledged that a mistake was made, that they are sorry for the mistake, that they ask forgiveness for the mistake. They then go a step further and make "solatia payments" [compensation for personal suffering or grief arising from an injury]. Calling that murder certainly qualifies as "hasty or eager to judge," IMHO, as is contrary to the American way, that is, innocent until proven guilty. Surely our Marines, those risking their lives for our freedom, are entitled to at least simple due process?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> "Col. John Nicholson said he apologized to a group of Afghan people in the eastern Nangahar province on behalf of the U.S. government and delivered solatia payments of approximately $2,000 to the families of 19 innocent civilians who died as a result of the March 4 attacks. Speaking to reporters at via a video feed from Afghanistan yesterday, Nicholson said the payments were "essentially a symbol of our sympathy to them" and "a way of expressing our genuine condolences over the incident occurring."
> 
> "Nicholson said that he met with the families to explain that the goes to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties, and that he read a statement expressing regret and asking for forgiveness. Solatia payments of about $2,000 are fairly standard in and Afghanistan when commanders believe U.S. troops are responsible for civilian deaths or damage to civilian buildings; they are not legal admissions of guilt or a crime, but instead are intended as signs of goodwill in war zones where the enemy is often hard to distinguish from the innocent."
> 
> ...


Absolutely they are, and if you feel more comfortable using another word for what these Marines are accused of, by all means use it instead.


----------



## TheSaint (Jun 28, 2005)

KenR said:


> I was going to throw my 1/2 cent into this but I think Jolly Roger said how I feel much more eloquently than I ever could.


Yes Jolly....well done!!

It is tough to judge what equates to children who are probably on their 2nd and 3rd tours. I cannot watch the news when I eat anymore. I lose my appetitie everytime I hear our troops being killed.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> First of all this wasn't "a" kid. It was at least several and probably more. The entire company of Marines was relocated to Kuwait and South Carolina after the attack, out of fear of reprisals from the local population.
> 
> Second, if you're going to reserve judgment on what these Marines did, at least have the moral fortitude to acknowledge why Afghan and Iraqi "insurgents" (known locally as "patriots" by the respective populations) are attacking our sons and daughters in the first place. Apparently you don't have the same wondrous latitude in judgment e.g. for the families of THIRTY THOUSAND Iraqi civilians who've had members ripped in half by Mr. Bush's bombs.
> 
> Simply astonishing hypocrisy, and about as genuinely evil as anything I've ever encountered.


You have no idea of my position on our military ventures in the Middle East and Central Asia, do you? You have no idea whether I believe they are justified or even legal, do you? You have no idea whether or not I believe Iraqis and Afghanis (leaving aside the international jihad contingent) are justified in fighting American troops in their countries, do you?

So until you do, your moronic accusations of hypocrisy and evil hold absolutely no water. You're simply so ill-informed, propagandized, and blinded by rage that you can't even countenance the possibility that one need not be a neocon war hawk to take exception to your simultaneously naïve, malicious, and slanderous condemnation of troops in the war zone.

Get a clue, pal.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> You have no idea of my position on our military ventures in the Middle East and Central Asia, do you? You have no idea whether I believe they are justified or even legal, do you? You have no idea whether or not I believe Iraqis and Afghanis (leaving aside the international jihad contingent) are justified in fighting American troops in their countries, do you?


Actually no, I don't. So kindly tell us. Are they justified?



Jolly Roger said:


> So until you do, your moronic accusations of hypocrisy and evil hold absolutely no water. You're simply so ill-informed, propagandized, and blinded by rage that you can't even countenance the possibility that one need not be a neocon war hawk to take exception to your simultaneously naïve, malicious, and slanderous condemnation of troops in the war zone.
> 
> Get a clue, pal.


It's not a "war zone". It's 150,000 American troops occupying two countries who don't want us there. Is that so incredibly difficult to understand?

Look, Americans in general are abysmally ignorant of the reality of the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Forget about my opinions, do yourself a favor and read any major newspaper or tune into any nightly news broadcast in either of those countries. You'll be utterly astonished. In their eyes, our sons and daughters are "the terrorists".


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

Thanks for the kind words, you other fellas. :icon_smile:


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Actually no, I don't. So kindly tell us. Are they justified?


Our efforts in Afghanistan were justified on a number of grounds, though they have generally been poorly managed (with apologies, of course, to COL S., CSM G., and friends). As for Iraq, I do not believe the initial invasion was justified, no, and I have said so from the very beginning. Of course, I did not adopt this position out of some naïve belief that war is _never_ justified, nor did I adopt it out of some vitriolic hatred of all things American fueled by cultural marxism. Nor did I adopt it, for that matter, based on the mindless sloganeering of people like yourself.

And in any event, now that we _are_ involved there, I understand, unlike some small-minded individuals who can't see beyond their hatred of 'the establishment', that the very _last_ thing we need to do is to spit on, ridicule, and insult the patriotic men and women doing what they believe to be their duty in the service of their country. You should be ashamed.



> It's not a "war zone". It's 150,000 American troops occupying two countries who don't want us there. Is that so incredibly difficult to understand?


Do not attempt to bait me with inane semantic quibbling over the proper terminology to describe things of which you obviously have no experience or understanding.



> Look, Americans in general are abysmally ignorant of the reality of the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Forget about my opinions, do yourself a favor and read any major newspaper or tune into any nightly news broadcast in either of those countries. You'll be utterly astonished. In their eyes, our sons and daughters are "the terrorists".


Forgive my skepticism, but I sincerely doubt you are a regular reader of Iraqi or Afghani news media (such as it is, Al Jazeera notwithstanding). I have a firm suspicion that your opinions are shaped more by our very own so-called "news media" here at home. I also sincerely doubt that you are truly any more informed of the state of affairs in Afghanistan and Iraq than is the average American; you've just got a head full of a _different_ kind of propaganda and _think_ it means you're more informed than everyone else.

As for me, I am perfectly aware of the way in which many nations around the world view us and our military escapades. Hell, I've seen with my own two eyes the destructive fruits of our military 'interventions' in the domestic affairs of other sovereign nations, and it sure wasn't pretty. As a matter of fact, I'd say it was pointless, brutal, completely unjustified, and in clear violation of international law. Unfortunately, Mr. Clinton and Madame Albright will never be held accountable for their actions.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

It doesn't take a genius to realise Iraq is a mess with a weak justification for entry and a difficult exit. But Afghanistan? The Taliban, primarily the pashtuns harboured and continue apparently to harbour our 6'6 cripple Osama bin Laden, may his tribe all suffer syphillis and eat pork unknowingly, im'sh'allah. Until every last Taliban and al Quida fighter and sympathiser is wasting away in mujahadeenville brutalising their promised virgins and drinking wine I frankly Don't Care FrankDC what some opium growing,tribal bandit thinks or doesn't about our presense. Once we're done they can go back to their 5th century tribal warefare over pistachio trees believing their culture to be the pure expression of that other tribal bandit Allah and superior to our decadent world.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> The military does seem to be able to punish criminals, although there is a curious lapse in the Pat Tillman situation.


Pat Tillman was not a curious lapse. When you put together the Tillman case, the story of that young woman who was in a car crash in Iraq (sorry, I'm blanking on her name), the coverup of Abu Ghraib, and the blackout of the photographs of military coffins, what we see is a government determined to suppress any information that may undermine its political support.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I agree with you about that, Jack. I don't believe the Bush administration is at all competent in administering the wars and is ruthless in its propaganda games. (The parts of the media that lean to the left are almost as ruthless, though.) 

I'm not at all sure Iraq was a good idea. Saddam was nasty; let's hope that what eventually replaces him is not worse.

I'll even concede that I think Bush is and always has been in totally over his head and has a lot of major competence issues.

But, I don't like the idea that ideologically motivated people pick and choose incidents that young soldiers in the heat of a violent situation do and rush to judgement. I find that using these young people's situations to pursue political goals is cynical (to put it mildly) and offputting.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Forsberg, as always your calmness and logic helps put things in perspective. Jack, you make an interesting point also.

Regards,

Ken


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Kav said:


> It doesn't take a genius to realise Iraq is a mess with a weak justification for entry and a difficult exit. But Afghanistan? The Taliban, primarily the pashtuns harboured and continue apparently to harbour our 6'6 cripple Osama bin Laden, may his tribe all suffer syphillis and eat pork unknowingly, im'sh'allah. Until every last Taliban and al Quida fighter and sympathiser is wasting away in mujahadeenville brutalising their promised virgins and drinking wine I frankly Don't Care FrankDC what some opium growing,tribal bandit thinks or doesn't about our presense. Once we're done they can go back to their 5th century tribal warefare over pistachio trees believing their culture to be the pure expression of that other tribal bandit Allah and superior to our decadent world.


Once we're "done" doing what exactly? Therein lies your delusion, the same delusion Bush, Cheney, and about 37% of Americans are under.

From just yesterday:

"The proposal from the upper house of parliament, which also calls for a date to be set for the withdrawal of foreign troops, suggests that Afghan support for the 5 1/2-year international military mission is crumbling amid a series of civilian deaths.
The motion reflects lawmakers' belief that negotiations with militants would be more effective than fighting, said Aminuddin Muzafari, the secretary of the upper house."

Mission accomplished indeed.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Once we're "done" doing what exactly? Therein lies your delusion, the same delusion Bush, Cheney, and about 37% of Americans are under.
> 
> From just yesterday:
> 
> ...


"theirs" or "ours"?

The mission in question was to remove the Taliban from control of Afghanistan. That mission was accomplished and not by talking.

I think you would have some credibility without intentionally misrepresenting the "mission accomplished" thing all the time.

If being a politician and opportunistic PR hound is Bush's "crime" then you need to hold all pols to the same standard. You do not, at least in your posts. You're far out of balance, if that is your goal.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> "theirs" or "ours"?
> 
> The mission in question was to remove the Taliban from control of Afghanistan. That mission was accomplished and not by talking.
> 
> I think you would have some credibility without intentionally misrepresenting the "mission accomplished" thing all the time.


You've got a lot of nerve talking about misrepresentation. The Bush Administration has been cornering the market on misrepresentation for the last four years, at the cost of our kids' lives and $10 billion a month.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> You've got a lot of nerve talking about misrepresentation. The Bush Administration has been cornering the market on misrepresentation for the last four years, at the cost of our kids' lives and $10 billion a month.


I'm not part of the Bush Administration. My nerve calling you out on your misrepresentation is not limited by their actions.

Their misrepresentations also do not excuse yours.

If they are as bad as you claim you should be able to make your case with honesty and integrity.

Trotting out the "mission accomplished" banner every time you disagree with phase two costs you credibility. Since you are unwilling to justify many of your notions/claims you are not running a surplus in that department. A bit of frugality would be in order.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The mission is to put a bullet through a vital body part of one Osam Bin Laden and crew. You won't do this with a cruise missile repainted by Martha Stewart and launched by Hilary. My God, a Coast Guardsman has to give basic military reality check to you. I'd be embaressed. But this thread is growing threadbare. I suggest we start another betting pool about the time and date you withdraw into the uncharted depths of cyberspace anonymity like so many others who expected their truth to be received with Thus Sparch Zarathustra hummed by the L.A. Gay Men's Chorus by the Moveable Feast of this forum's membership.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

On that point ... I wonder if after McCain's line in the debate that he was going to get Osama and that he would follow Osama wherever he is hiding even to the gates of hell; anyone thought as I did - ruh roh, he's going to invade Pakistan?

The whole abstract "wherever he is" thing bothers me. We pretty much generally know his location that's not the problem is it? Isn't this the true 'cowboying' that W is always accused of doing? It seems Pakistan is a more complicated issue on many fronts than simply following Osama there and killing him. I'd prefer a Presidential debate with a more sober discussion of plans for Pakistan, particularly if Musharraf loses power.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Kav said:


> The mission is to put a bullet through a vital body part of one Osam Bin Laden and crew.


And nearly six years later we're still waiting.

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- George W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- George W. Bush, 3/13/02


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Kav said Osama _and crew._


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Kav said:


> The mission is to put a bullet through a vital body part of one Osam Bin Laden and crew. You won't do this with a cruise missile repainted by Martha Stewart and launched by Hilary. My God, a Coast Guardsman has to give basic military reality check to you. I'd be embaressed. But this thread is growing threadbare. *I suggest we start another betting pool about the time and date you withdraw into the uncharted depths of cyberspace anonymity like so many others who expected their truth to be received with Thus Sparch Zarathustra hummed by the L.A. Gay Men's Chorus by the Moveable Feast of this forum's membership*.


I'm in for $10.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

Where would we be without Francis? Who else could have offered such stunning defenses of North Korea, Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, the Taliban and a host of other "unpopular" (to say the least) causes? Anyone care to wager what Francis would have had to say about Milosevic?

I am sure that the irony of his incessant and unfair assaults on a US military which makes possible his freedom of speech are lost on him and I am equally certain that our Francis, who has made every US mistake his cause celebre, was an active champion of human rights for Iraqis suffering under Saddam and Afghanis suffering under the Taliban. Well I am not as sure of the latter but lets extend the benefit of the doubt to St. Francis, a courtesy btw that he refuses to extend to men and women who voluntarily risk their lives on a daily basis so that he has the right to criticize their every move and call them murderers.

St. Francis has said that he wants our troops home, but one wonders if the reason behind his "concern" for our troops is motvated by his desire to try them for war crimes. Fear not Francis, Ramsay Clark is on the case.

Those who defend tyranny will always be among us. We are, however, lucky the are are usually represented by minds like Francis.

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Thanks for that ad hominem. Looks like I struck a nerve.

I don't blame you for lashing out. After all, with the American people waking up en masse to the walking catastrophes called Bush and Cheney, demanding an end to their obscene military adventurism, the final demise of Pax Americana, the Republican Party imploding upon itself etc etc, these days it must really suck being a right wingnut.

Again I tell you, that tiny box you live in will be getting a whole lot smaller in the next year or so.

And that's as close to a direct ad hominem as I need to make _my_ point.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC,

I wish you would make a salient point, but the ability to put forth a coherent argument, even an incorrect one, seems beyond your grasp.

Now get busy you have work to do, after all it must keep you very busy defending tyranny all the time while calling our troops war criminals.

But in the end you may survive me on this forum, bc between your utter nonsense and a certain Pathmark thread I am close to calling it an Ask Andy career.

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Honestly, I can't say I'd miss your participation. Read this thread (or for that matter, most AAAC threads in which you post) and tell us who has started the ad hominem attacks. It's remarkably consistent over the months I've been here: you take everything personally, and when you have no coherent response to views expressed or points made, you immediately go for the jugular and launch personal attacks which have nothing to do with these views or points. When you can't stand a message, you shoot the messenger.

This is no way to go through life, and it's certainly not the way to participate in public forums.

For the record I do not and never could advocate blind patriotism, least of all unconditional support of our armed forces. Beyond that, in my view those who do advocate such things are supremely un-American and dangerous, even traitorous. I believe since WWII and the establishment of an obscenely large, permanent armaments industry in the U.S. our forces have been little more than misguided pawns of catastrophic Pentagon and Executive Branch military adventurism, and one of the (if not the) largest squanderings of wealth in human history.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> I don't blame you for lashing out. After all, with the American people waking up en masse to the walking catastrophes called Bush and Cheney, demanding an end to their obscene military adventurism, the final demise of Pax Americana, the Republican Party imploding upon itself etc etc, these days it must really suck being a right wingnut.


Yeah, who could possibly want any more of this administration's attempts to use the Army and Marines to stabilize a feuding Iraq, when we could just have another Clinton to impose more of those famous Clinton economic sanctions on them that just starve the Iraqi people to death. For that matter, why put troops on the ground when we could just have another Clinton to order more of those famous Clinton daily bombing runs over Iraq.

Speaking of bombing runs, forget the current administration's military adventurism! What we really need is another Clinton in office to send out out the Air Force on more of those famous Clinton bombing runs to take out pharmaceutical plants manufacturing medicine for impoverished Africa. While they're at it, maybe they can take out more hospitals, schools, train stations, power plants, farms, and even some more embassies in the already war-ravaged Balkans. Those things sure made us a lot of friends and improved our standing on the world stage.

Hell, who would want any more of this administration's domestic spying when we could have another Clinton in the White House, collecting confidential FBI files on opponents of the administration, sending out the ATF to brutally incinerate innocent American men, women, and children because they hold weird religious beliefs, sending out the FBI to gun down the wives and children of Idaho ******** because they hold unfashionable political views, rewarding their friends with federal appointments if they promise to obstruct the investigation of administration crimes, and leaving in their wake a trail of the bodies of those who might expose them.

And just think, this time she'll have the so-called PATRIOT Act to back her up! Won't that be grand?

Man, I can sure see how people get all misty-eyed and nostalgic over the good ol' 90's and that swell Clinton Democrat administration. Go Hillary! It's yours in '08, baby!


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Waco was overkill, but the leaders of that cult were hardly innocent.

The FBI may have over reacted with Randy Weaver, but I have little patience for people who decide to shoot it out with the police. Randy Weaver put his family in harm's way.

I wonder about Frank DC sometimes, but the right wing stuff is just as appalling to me.

It seems that all presidents fall to the temptation to occasionally misuse the power, whether they are Democrats or Republicans. They are human, after all.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

David Koresh might have been a criminal, but burning his victims to death didn't really help them much.

As for Ruby Ridge, I'd say it's a little more than _overreaction_ for the federal government to send a Special Operations Group complete with snipers out to Middle-of-Nowhere, Idaho to arrest a man ostensibly for having a sawed-off shotgun.

Anyway, you're right that there are nuts on both ends of the spectrum. You're also correct that presidents from both parties have fallen to the temptation to abuse their power. Believe me, I have as little love for the current Bush administration as I do for the former Clinton one.

Frankie here mentioned (correctly, as far as it goes) that the people are largely fed up with Bush and Cheney. I was just exploring the alternative.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> Frankie here mentioned (correctly, as far as it goes) that the people are largely fed up with Bush and Cheney. I was just exploring the alternative.


Are you on familiar terms with FrankDC? Disagree with him all you want, but this post suggests you have descended to mocking him.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> Are you on familiar terms with FrankDC? Disagree with him all you want, but this post suggests you have descended to mocking him.


Guilty as charged.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I agree that incinerating Waco was a tragic thing. 

I don't think (if I recall it) that it was intentional. It was a tragic miscalculation, though and should not have happened. I agree with that.

We can disagree about Randy Weaver I suppose. It might have been overkill.

However, Randy Weaver could have and should have kept all of it from happening by simply submitting to arrest way back when this whole thing started.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Karl, are you sure you don't occasionally fall into some of the things you accuse others of?

A lot of incivility here happens from both sides of the spectrum. Frank can be strident, but so can you sometimes. Sometimes both of you have interesting points, too.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Jolly Roger said:


> Guilty as charged.


Jack,

It is a guilt which I will also happily bear.

Regards,

Ken


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Are you on familiar terms with FrankDC? Disagree with him all you want, but this post suggests you have descended to mocking him.


 
It's easier and more fun to ignore him.

It bothers him more, too.

Highly suggested.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> FrankDC,
> 
> I wish you would make a salient point, but the ability to put forth a coherent argument, even an incorrect one, seems beyond your grasp.
> 
> ...


Karl,

Don't you dare quit. Your one of my AAAC heros.

Regards,

Ken


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Quite the thread developed while I was gone I see. A nice mocking thread title, designed I am sure, to create ill feelings from the start. I find it hard to believe anyone could post something to even remotely hint that people are willing to find this acceptable and seem to take some sort of perverted glee that such a thing might have been committed *because it would smeer the armed forces*.

Here is the thing: no matter how you feel about the current war efforts, time and time again the difference between the sides is exposed. At the end of the day, the vast bulk of the Western world wants to avoid atrocities and civilian collateral damage and take action to hold people responsible when it does happen. When planes fly into the WTC, we see clips of crowds of people dancing in the streets in celebration. When civilian contractors are tortured, have their heads hacked off while fully conscious, burnt alive and their bodies placed on display, we see people dancing around the corpses and it is celebrated. When a cartoon people disagree with is published, hundreds of thousands riot, burn, kill, threaten further death and jihad *over a damn cartoon*.

It seems clear to me.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Karl, are you sure you don't occasionally fall into some of the things you accuse others of?
> 
> A lot of incivility here happens from both sides of the spectrum. Frank can be strident, but so can you sometimes. Sometimes both of you have interesting points, too.


Perhaps I am worse. We are all sinners, no? But what I take exception to is someone who constantly defames the US military while defending tyranny. FrankDC has tacitly endorsed North Korea winning the Korean War and said that Soviet domination of Eastern Europe was justified! Its Kafkaesque of him to accuse me of incivility when he harbors such sentiments.

Perhaps I express a few unkind words towards FrankDC but the garbage he tries to masquerade as a legitimate point of view is far more toxic than any barbs I might throw his way.

Karl


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I disagree with FrankDC a lot, but agree occasionally (I will not support GW Bush no matter how idiotic he is; I refuse.) but you might find your arguments are taken more seriously if your tone is more respectful. Frank might find that, too.

Sins by lefty posters do not excuse sins by righty posters.

Because I do not expect either of you to take this seriously, I will stop here, at least as far as asking for respectful tones from either of you.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

forsbergacct2000,

I wonder why you would ask for a respectful tone for views that don't deserve respect? Why should I cloak FrankDC's disgusting views (unless of course you think that defaming our military and according North Korea or the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe do not constitute disgusting views) with a veneer of legitimacy by treating them respectfully.

I respect FrankDC's right to express his views but you ask to much by asking for them to greeted with respectful tones.

Karl


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

FrankDC made his bed, now he gets to lie in it. If it wasn't for the self righteous vitriol I would be the soul of propriety and caution regarding people attacking him on his views. But his venom is too much to take, so I don't take it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I can handle just about all of Frank's schtick. The only thing I cannot abide is his outlandish claims, sans any proof, then the constant, "DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK" when you ask him for proof, coupled with his disgusting sense of glee any time he can throw some mud on the US. Francis needs to buck up with some data on his outlandish claims and he needs to lighten up for Sgt. Hulka and the boys and girls in the uniform.

Cheers


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> at the cost of our kids' lives and $10 billion a month.


That's odd, FrankDC - I'd always assumed that if you had children, you would NEVER permit them to volunteer for the armed services? Do you have kids in the war?

It seems a bit disingenuous to assume the guilt of the Marines in your first post and to speak of "mass murder," "cold-blooded massacre", etc. and then, when expedient, suddenly start talking about "our kids" and "our sons and daughters" in the war. Would you assume the guilt of your children in such a matter?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Rocker said:


> That's odd, FrankDC - I'd always assumed that if you had children, you would NEVER permit them to volunteer for the armed services? Do you have kids in the war?
> 
> It seems a bit disingenuous to assume the guilt of the Marines in your first post and to speak of "mass murder," "cold-blooded massacre", etc. and then, when expedient, suddenly start talking about "our kids" and "our sons and daughters" in the war. Would you assume the guilt of your children in such a matter?


Rocker, totally unfair to ask him for a consistent position. Next, you are going to be asking for supporting data on outlandish claims......


----------



## Valhson (Mar 26, 2007)

Rocker said:


> That's odd, FrankDC - I'd always assumed that if you had children, you would NEVER permit them to volunteer for the armed services? Do you have kids in the war?
> 
> It seems a bit disingenuous to assume the guilt of the Marines in your first post and to speak of "mass murder," "cold-blooded massacre", etc. and then, when expedient, suddenly start talking about "our kids" and "our sons and daughters" in the war. Would you assume the guilt of your children in such a matter?


I can't agree more with your point but can I please point something out. May be a short hijack but I would like some clarification on this.

It may be due to the fact that I am only 29 but I am fairly sure that a Marine at 19 is no longer a CHILD! He/she is an ADULT at that point and though not as wise as our elders, is not a kid. I am pretty sure the reason I didn't fit into campus life all that well had a lot to do with my service experience and my lack of understanding of what my peers were trying to accomplish in their social pursuits. Something about the training, self-discipline, responsibility for your actions (no Mom and Dad can't do crap for ya if you screw up.) It makes me wonder who is calling them kids and if so did you serve? Are you older? Well then, great you may have your kids there and for that I have all respect and sympathy for you. If not, how long did others help you out?

FrankDC, out of curiosity, how old were you when you first started to really take responsibility for all your actions. Kav, Karl, Wayfarer? I don't mean it as and attack on any of you. I am wondering if you went to school and didn't have to face the real world like so many lucky people do when they first reached 22 or so. I know a couple of you on here served also.

Something about being in the Balkans right at the end of their tiff changed me a bit.

I know it is only a side point but I personally think it is insulting and a point some people use (consciously or subconsciously) to distort what is happening. These are men and women. And if anyone thinks that you only get that with college and being in your 30's I would have to strongly disagree with you.

My personal thoughts on this conflict are withstanding.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Valhson said:


> FrankDC, out of curiosity, how old were you when you first started to really take responsibility for all your actions. Kav, Karl, *Wayfarer?* I don't mean it as and attack on any of you. I am wondering if you went to school and didn't have to face the real world like so many lucky people do when they first reached 22 or so. I know a couple of you on here served also.


I am unsure why I am included in your address, as I never pursued this line. However, since you asked, I first faced "the real world" at 9 when I came home from school one day to find my father had just died. I started taking "responsibility for" my actions soon thereafter as I was now "the man of the house". Actions such as cutting grass and shovelling snow for money for school clothes and other items became common place. I purchased the family a car at 16 through summer and after school work. I left home at 18 and have made my way in this world ever since.

Good enough for you?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I believe that I described his position as "off-putting." 

I'm appalled by the nasty attack on the soldier at the start of this thread as much as anyone. The title in this particular thread is almost nasty enough to be called a trolling attempt in and of itself.

However, most threads here degenerate to the point where I don't take either side very seriously.

A lot of them, I just ignore after the first page.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> That's odd, FrankDC - I'd always assumed that if you had children, you would NEVER permit them to volunteer for the armed services? Do you have kids in the war?
> 
> It seems a bit disingenuous to assume the guilt of the Marines in your first post and to speak of "mass murder," "cold-blooded massacre", etc. and then, when expedient, suddenly start talking about "our kids" and "our sons and daughters" in the war. Would you assume the guilt of your children in such a matter?


I've already said these Marines should be accorded due process, as I would insist for my own child. I've also said, correctly, that our military brass doesn't go around issuing formal apologies, paying restitution, admitting a "mistake" was made and asking for forgiveness unless they're reasonably sure of what actually happened.


----------



## Valhson (Mar 26, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> I am unsure why I am included in your address, as I never pursued this line. However, since you asked, I first faced "the real world" at 9 when I came home from school one day to find my father had just died. I started taking "responsibility for" my actions soon thereafter as I was now "the man of the house". Actions such as cutting grass and shovelling snow for money for school clothes and other items became common place. I purchased the family a car at 16 through summer and after school work. I left home at 18 and have made my way in this world ever since.
> 
> Good enough for you?


You were only included as I didn't want to single anyone out and keep all of the current active voices in there. I didn't want anyone crying unfair treatment! Thank you for the honest response!

In all fairness, I will state mine in case anyone feels they are being attacked. My father died at sea when I was 12, I am the oldest and even though I am younger than most here, I too worked my @$$ off starting at 14 to keep the little family boat yard going with my Grandfather, paid for the first car at 17 and drove my younger brothers to school everyday, joined the service at 18, entered college at 23 first to graduate from my family with a degree and am currently working on grad schooling.

I guess that isn't the point though, I was just curious as to who would think a Marine is a child unless they are that persons child. My theory is such that the majority of people that think they are children are those that only have a holliweird version of military reality.

Again, Wayfarer, I was not trying it single you out.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I've already said these Marines should be accorded due process...


Then reconcile that with your first response in this thread:



FrankDC said:


> So $2000 a head and an apology is the going rate for cold-blooded massacre of innocent civilians? Talk about disgusting nonsense.


Sounds to me like you have a firm conviction already formed, to hell with due process.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Then reconcile that with your first response in this thread:
> 
> Sounds to me like you have a firm conviction already formed, to hell with due process.


So you're claiming our military brass uses phrases like "deeply, deeply ashamed" and "terrible, terrible mistake" without first making a determination of what actually happened? Astonishing.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> So you're claiming our military brass uses phrases like "deeply, deeply ashamed" and "terrible, terrible mistake" without first making a determination of what actually happened? Astonishing.


As usual Francis, you missed the point. I was pointing out your inconsistencies and your constant _ad hoc_ rescues. It was you, not the military brass that started off this thread with the statement "cold blooded massacre", clearly showing you had no thoughts of due process until you needed to look like you were being balanced three pages later. Unlike you, most here can connect the dots from page to page.

Speaking of which, I thought you were ignoring me from now on? Busted yet again Francis.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Read it again, a bit slower this time:

"We are filled with grief and sadness at the death of any Afghan, but the death and wounding of innocent Afghans at the hand of Americans is a stain on our honor and on the memory of the many Americans who have died defending Afghanistan and the Afghan people," Nicholson read from the statement. "This was a terrible, terrible mistake."

If you're having problems with assumptions of guilt, take it up with Mr. Nicholson.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Read it again, a bit slower this time:


Ah yes St. Francis that never engages in an _ad hom_. Well sinning saint, you need to go back and re-read what I posted, sounding the words out very carefully. You cannot condemn people of a "cold blooded massacre" on one hand and then on the other state they should have "due process". They are...and concentrate here Francis....incompatible positions. You cannot state as fact these people committed a "cold blooded massacre" until...and again, concentrate....*after due process has occurred*.

I am done with you on this Francis, it should be clear even to you, so I have to assume you are just being argumentative with a purpose.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Ah yes St. Francis that never engages in an _ad hom_. Well sinning saint, you need to go back and re-read what I posted, sounding the words out very carefully. You cannot condemn people of a "cold blooded massacre" on one hand and then on the other state they should have "due process". They are...and concentrate here Francis....incompatible positions. You cannot state as fact these people committed a "cold blooded massacre" until...and again, concentrate....*after due process has occurred*.
> 
> I am done with you on this Francis, it should be clear even to you, so I have to assume you are just being argumentative with a purpose.


And again, I'm not the one who investigated and made a determination about what happened. Unless Nicholson is lying, the role of due process in this case is limited to that of a mere formality.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> And again, I'm not the one who investigated and made a determination about what happened. Unless Nicholson is lying, the role of due process in this case is limited to that of a mere formality.


Due process a mere formality? Francis, you sum up your position for me so perfectly. You have just told everyone exactly how important this Constitutional right is to you. It is a mere formality. Kudos.

I would like to give you this quote from the article you cite though. You are going to find this quote rather bothersome, so you might want to stop reading here. Oh wait, I forgot your ability to ignore all facts. Read on!



> "The events related to that ambush are currently under investigation. In the interest of preserving the presumption of innocence that all U.S. service members deserve when facing allegations of misconduct, *we will not characterize the incident until we have all the facts."*


Good thing this is just a "mere formality" to you, as you demonstrated you had no problem what so ever in characterizing the incident. What was it again? Ah yes, a "cold blooded massacre".

Good job Francis.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I think ' Never get into a pissing match with a skunk' describes this thread. People who respect each other, count as friends are biting blindly at every nuance of phrase like sharks in a feeding frenzy. Franck is the broken tooth we lick, the square of bubblewrap needing popping, the inane tune stuck in our head all day, ie the Brady Bunch.I'm going to avoid this embaressment in the future , cross my arms on my chest and turn my back like a Klingon.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Might as well just lock the thread, because we have stuck a fork in it. It's done.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

KenR said:


> Might as well just lock the thread, because we have stuck a fork in it. It's done.


I have to agree, I do not think I can top getting someone to admit that due process is just a mere formality.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

KenR said:


> Might as well just lock the thread, because we have stuck a fork in it. It's done.


There you guys go again. Can't stand the message, so lock it up and pretend it never existed.

I'M NOT THE ONE WHO MADE AN ADMISSION OF GUILT IN THIS CASE. Keep reading that sentence over and over again, until it penetrates all those fat layers inside your skulls.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Of course, this is the best, most likely way to make friends and influence people.

Geeshhhhhhhhhh


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> There you guys go again. Can't stand the message, so lock it up and pretend it never existed.
> 
> I'M NOT THE ONE WHO MADE AN ADMISSION OF GUILT IN THIS CASE. Keep reading that sentence over and over again, until it penetrates all those fat layers inside your skulls.


First Francis, I just re-read the article. I am unsure what you mean, well about most things, but in this case, by "an admission of guilt". Not once did I see anyone in your article say, "So and So is guilty of thus and such crime". In fact, it seemed people were *very careful* not to use words like "murder" and "massacre" and "cold blooded", you know, those words and phrases you keep using.

Second, calling us all fat heads? My, my, St. Francis of the Never _Ad Homs_ has certainly fallen off his throne today, has he not?

Cheers!


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

As much as Francis beats me down he is beginning to resemble the last days of Gmac and Crs. 

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Read it again, a bit slower this time:
> 
> "We are filled with grief and sadness at the death of any Afghan, but the death and wounding of innocent Afghans at the hand of Americans is a stain on our honor and on the memory of the many Americans who have died defending Afghanistan and the Afghan people," Nicholson read from the statement. "This was a terrible, terrible mistake."
> 
> If you're having problems with assumptions of guilt, take it up with Mr. Nicholson.


A terrible mistake is not the same thing as mass murder, which you used on page one.



FrankDC said:


> No. It should (and hopefully will) be handled like any other mass murder.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> A terrible mistake is not the same thing as mass murder, which you used on page 1.


You are falling into the same error I did ksinc. Once it scrolls off the current page, it no longer counts. QED.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> You are falling into the same error I did ksinc. Once it scrolls off the current page, it no longer counts. QED.


I'm sorry, Senator. I do not recall.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> A terrible mistake is not the same thing as mass murder


So wait until a court martial has its say, then decide if the difference between the two amounts to something other than a pathetic attempt at avoiding reality.

Y'all should be speechwriters for Richard Perle.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> So wait until a court martial has its say, then decide if the difference between the two amounts to something other than a pathetic attempt at avoiding reality.
> 
> Y'all should be speechwriters for Richard Perle.


I was waiting to see what a court martial has to say. You are the one that jumped the gun and declared mass murder.

Ahem. Your ad hom is showing.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

*how to deal with insurgency: an alternative*

I'm not a veteran, and have NO EXPERIENCE with the military; that said, 
I'm interested in what Frank DC, ksinc, Kav, and those posters that DO have experience with war, terrorism, insurgency think of the below andecdotal comment.

From *Speaking of Faith, *(NPR radio program of 5/10/07)
https://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/scienceandhope/transcript.shtml
South African Quaker cosmologist George Ellis. He's an author and activist, and a recipient of the Templeton Prize for his work at the intersection of science and religion.

_Dr. Ellis: In relation to Iraq, I want to read to you - when I got the prize, I got a lot of e-mails, and some of it was very interesting. This is from a man called David Christie. He says as follows: "In 1967, I was a young officer in a Scottish battalion engaged in peacekeeping duties in Aden town and what is now Yemen. The situation was similar to Iraq, with people being killed everyday. As always, those who suffered the most were the innocent local people. Not only were we tough, but we had the power to pretty well destroy the whole town had we wished." This is the British Army. "But we had a commanding officer who understood how to make peace, and he led us to do something very unusual: not to react when we were attacked. Only if we were a 100 percent certain that a particular person had thrown a grenade or fired a shot at us were we allowed to fire. During our tour of duty, we had 102 grenades thrown at us. And in response, the battalion fired with a grand total of two shots, killing one grenade-thrower.

"The cost to us was over 100 of our own men wounded and, surely by the grace of God, only one killed. When they threw rocks at us, we stood fast. When they threw grenades, we hit the deck and after the explosions, we got to our feet and stood fast. We did not react in anger or indiscriminately. This was not the anticipated reaction. Slowly, very slowly, the local people began to trust us and made it clear to the local terrorists that they were not welcome in their area. At one stage, neighboring battalions were having a torrid time with attacks. We were playing soccer with the locals. We had, in fact, brought peace to the area at the cost of our own blood. How had this been achieved? Principally, because we were led by a man, who, every soldier in the battalion knew would die for him if required. Each soldier in turn came to be prepared to sacrifice himself for such a man. Many people may sneer that we were merely obeying orders. But this was not the case. Our commanding officer was more highly regarded by his soldiers than the general, one might almost say, loved. So gradually, the heart of the peacemaker began to grow in the men and determination to succeed, whatever the cost. Probably, most of the soldiers, like myself, only realized years afterwards what had been achieved."

That is kenosis in action. In a strange situation, an army armed to the teeth but acting in a way in which they were sacrificing because they were wounded, and they didn't take revenge unless they were 100 percent certain what they were doing._

_Michael_


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Every army has enlightened officers of conscious, from a Ottoman regional governor who refused to take part in the armenian genocide to your reference. And every army has their Bloody Sundays in the streets of Belfast.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

thanks, Kav



Kav said:


> Every army has enlightened officers of conscious, .... And every army has their Bloody Sundays in the streets of Belfast.


Hmmm, do you mean that "enlightened officers" were absent from "Bloody Sundays", and the incident in the OP ? Or that officers acted other than enlightened ? The officer making the apologies clearly showed professional remorse and compassion; was he not present when it occured ? or were soldiers acting under "un-enlightended" orders ? 
Are there any accountability issues to be discussed ?

I absolutely DO NOT KNOW how I would behave in a similar situation: 
are these sorts of things preventable at all ?

thanks,
M


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I hope I didn't imply I had military service - I also do not.

My take on the reading is this: it's fantastic that they felt that way and responded that way, but that doesn't impune those that defend themselves. It's like turning the other check. A great thing if you can do it, but I don't think anyone that defends themself is necessarily wrong either. I also don't think it's the only workable strategy, but YMMV.

Per Kav's post, I think that sort of leadership is required at the individual level and can't really be done by policy.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

tabasco said:


> I absolutely DO NOT KNOW how I would behave in a similar situation: are these sorts of things preventable at all ?


That last question is by far the best one I've read in this thread.

No, these sorts of things are probably not preventable, especially during an unwanted occupation of a foreign country (as opposed to a liberation, which is how Bush/Cheney tried -- and still are trying -- to frame this catastophe), and especially one that has killed 30,000+ civilians and lasted longer than all of World War II.

The point of focusing on this incident is to help force, finally, a change of strategy in Iraq. 4+ years and a half trillion dollars later and the country is still in a state of social/economic devastation and political chaos. Meanwhile, all the Casey/Petraeus crew has been able to give us is ongoing misrepresentation, e.g. "al Qaeda in Iraq" equals any one of the 85% of Iraqis who cheer either publicly or privately every time a U.S. soldier is killed.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Lets see, Hitler invaded Poland in 1939 after occupying the Rhineland ,Czechoslovakia and Austria. Meanwhile Japan had waged war against Nationalist China for how long? Veterans from the Abraham Lincoln Brigade returned home to hostility and the ship's company of USS Panay scattered. So lets drop the conceit WW2 started at Pearl Harbour. Dragging casualty figures like our dead at Mogadishu through the forum threads gets old. I think most everyone 'gets it' What you, and everybody else leaves alone like a Florida hanging chad is actually doing something about it. I see no concerted effort to impeach, mass civil disobediance or boycott and we haven't had one assassination in how long, students, rap stars and women of poverty the haute couture of homicides. No, Bush & Co will serve out their mandate delivered twice and retire to a life bereft of the concerns or wounds the rest of us bear. The only 'boots on the ground' for this 'clear and present danger' ( My God, I feel like a imbedded CNN reporter) seem to be going after military personel who will never show up in any Washington Madam's little black book, retire to another desk at Halliburton, ranch in Crawford or especially, and never a Starbucks in the People's Republic of Santa Monica et al across the spatial span of garricitizens and sunshine patriots who's real comittment to change amounts to political masturbation with feel good Onanism.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Kav said:


> Lets see, Hitler invaded Poland in 1939 after occupying the Rhineland ,Czechoslovakia and Austria. Meanwhile Japan had waged war against Nationalist China for how long? Veterans from the Abraham Lincoln Brigade returned home to hostility and the ship's company of USS Panay scattered. So lets drop the conceit WW2 started at Pearl Harbour. Dragging casualty figures like our dead at Mogadishu through the forum threads gets old. I think most everyone 'gets it' What you, and everybody else leaves alone like a Florida hanging chad is actually doing something about it. I see no concerted effort to impeach, mass civil disobediance or boycott


If Bush and Cheney were impeached, would it change the mess they've created? I assure you, if Congress thought it would change anything, impeachment proceedings would be well underway by now.

Bush is finally talking about "compromise" (i.e. agreeing to the exact same benchmarks for the Iraq government as HE HIMSELF proposed in the first place), so the main goal at this point is to keep Bush's catastrophe limited to Iraq and from spreading to Iran and elsewhere.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I assure you, if Congress thought it would change anything, impeachment proceedings would be well underway by now.


I'm sorry, but I have been biting my tongue for quite some time now and have resisted, utilizing every ounce of strength I have, from making any additional comments. Frankly, FrankDC was doing such a good job of making a fool of himself that I saw no real reason to respond anyway, but then he made this statement:

"I assure you, if Congress thought it would change anything, impeachment proceedings would be well underway by now."

Impeachment proceedings would be underway "if Congress thought it would change anything?" My parents are going to be very disappointed because all of that money they spent sending me to the very best private schools in the country throughout my life was apparently for naught. I say this because I was lead to believe, apparently wrongly if FrankDC is correct, that impeachment was for "high crimes and misdemeanors" committed while in office, but now I know it is a means for Congress to effect change!

Since the Democrats have gotten control of Congress, through the slimmest of margins, they have been running around like chickens with their heads cut off making trouble wherever they can. If they believed, even for a nano-second, that they could actually, successfully impeach the President, they would have acted faster than FrankDC will respond to this post (and we all know how fast that is!).

Another thing, while I am in the mood. All of you who are so very excited about the Dems being in power and making remarks about the disarray of the Republican Party . . . the same was being said after the 2004 elections about the Dems and it did not take long for them to find a way to claw back into power. Is your excitement over this slim majority you have so overwhelming that you cannot see your own hand in front of your face?

One last question for FrankDC . . are you an actual person or just a caricature of yourself? I ask this in all seriousness because I just cannot believe that an actual human-being exists out there, even in this crazy, mixed-up world we live in, that believes the things that you do. You are either certifiably crazy, on drugs, or simply causing trouble for the sake of causing trouble, you know, playing devils advocate at all times.

My humble opinion.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I assure you, if Congress thought it would change anything, impeachment proceedings would be well underway by now.


I'm sorry, but I have been biting my tongue for quite some time now and have resisted, utilizing every ounce of strength I have, from making any additional comments. Frankly, FrankDC was doing such a good job of making a fool of himself that I saw no real reason to respond anyway, but then he made this statement:

"I assure you, if Congress thought it would change anything, impeachment proceedings would be well underway by now."

Impeachment proceedings would be underway "if Congress thought it would change anything?" My parents are going to be very disappointed because all of that money they spent sending me to the very best private schools in the country throughout my life was apparently for naught. I say this because I was lead to believe, apparently wrongly if FrankDC is correct, that impeachment was for "high crimes and misdemeanors" committed while in office, but now I know it is a means for Congress to effect change!

Since the Democrats have gotten control of Congress, through the slimmest of margins, they have been running around like chickens with their heads cut off making trouble wherever they can. If they believed, even for a nano-second, that they could actually, successfully impeach the President, they would have acted faster than FrankDC will respond to this post (and we all know how fast that is!).

Another thing, while I am in the mood. All of you who are so very excited about the Dems being in power and making remarks about the disarray of the Republican Party . . . the same was being said after the 2004 elections about the Dems and it did not take long for them to find a way to claw back into power. Is your excitement over this slim majority you have so overwhelming that you cannot see your own hand in front of your face?

One last question for FrankDC . . are you an actual person or just a caricature of yourself? I ask this in all seriousness because I just cannot believe that an actual human-being exists out there, even in this crazy, mixed-up world we live in, that believes the things that you do. You are either certifiably crazy, on drugs, or simply causing trouble for the sake of causing trouble, you know, playing devils advocate at all times.

My humble opinion.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> Impeachment proceedings would be underway "if Congress thought it would change anything?" My parents are going to be very disappointed because all of that money they spent sending me to the very best private schools in the country throughout my life was apparently for naught. I say this because I was lead to believe, apparently wrongly if FrankDC is correct, that impeachment was for "high crimes and misdemeanors" committed while in office, but now I know it is a means for Congress to effect change!


If you're making such puerile and ridiculous leaps of logic (not to mention the ad hominems and lack of reading skills), I'd say your education failed you. Miserably.

I didn't claim the purpose of impeachment is to effect change. But it does effect change as a result. As for high crimes and misdemeanors, in 2004 the U.S. House assembled a list of 200+ misleading statements made by Bush and his administration on the subject of Iraq, many of them bald-faced lies. If perjury about a BLOW JOB are valid grounds for impeachment, intentional and methodical lying to Congress and the American people about the need for war, and committing our armed forces under false pretenses certainly qualify as valid grounds for impeachment.

But again, at this point it would accomplish little or nothing. Bush has already realized there is no option but to compromise and agree to a timetable for Iraq. His only other option was to start holding bake sales if he wanted to continue funding his failed policy.


----------



## In Mufti (Jan 28, 2005)

This incident means nothing beyond what happened along that road. 

In every war, regardless of its popularity, these things are going to happen.  The Marine Corps requires “Law of War” training to its members every year whether there is a war going on or not. When the shooting starts, it is anticipated that sooner or later there is going to be a tragedy and that’s why they have a regular protocol for investigation and prosecution if it is suspected that a crime has been committed.

If a bunch of innocent civilians were killed and wounded, it was a serious breakdown in unit leadership and discipline within that unit and those men should be held accountable. That’s about all that can be said about this or any other situation like this on a battlefield.

Trying to spin it into some great political talking point is dumb.

If this thread was meant to be a cheap shot at the Marine Corps--you really need to grow up. That “baby killer” stuff doesn’t play anymore and should have been buried with Jerry Garcia. It’s really tired now.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

In Mufti said:


> This incident means nothing beyond what happened along that road.
> 
> If a bunch of innocent civilians were killed and wounded, it was a serious breakdown in unit leadership and discipline within that unit and those men should be held accountable. That's about all that can be said about this or any other situation like this on a battlefield.
> 
> ...


There's been a serious breakdown of leadership. I can certainly agree with you there. As for the baby killer stuff being tired: try telling it to the dead babies.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I didn't claim the purpose of impeachment is to effect change. But it does effect change as a result.


Clinton was impeached. What change did it create as a result?



FrankDC said:


> As for high crimes and misdemeanors, in 2004 the U.S. House assembled a list of 200+ misleading statements made by Bush and his administration on the subject of Iraq, many of them bald-faced lies. If perjury about a BLOW JOB are valid grounds for impeachment, intentional and methodical lying to Congress and the American people about the need for war, and committing our armed forces under false pretenses certainly qualify as valid grounds for impeachment.


Speaking of puerile thinking..... "misleading statements" =! perjury. Even "methodical lying" =! perjury. You can keep saying it, but it will not make it any truer. No, if Pelosi smelled blood, Dubya's impeachment would have been up for a vote months ago.

Now, one similarity between Clinton's impeachment and much of Dubya's troubles are they both have a problem disclosing their mistakes or of creating a coverup when one is not needed. That is going to be Dubya's downfall just like it was Clinton's, just like it was Nixon's.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> FrankDC, BertieW...have either of you ever worn a uniform; have you ever been in combat, shot at, wounded by enemy fire or tried to provide comfort to to a friend who has and who eventually dies...lying there in the dirt?


FrankDC, BertieW: having just reviewed all five pages of posts to this thread, I feel compelled to note that neither of you answered my question. As one who can answer that question in the affirmative, while I am fully prepared and willing to be judged by "a jury of my peers" (a fundamental tenant of our legal system), and as I am sure those young marines are, I do rather resent it when I am, or see others, being judged by mere place holders, such as I suspect are the two of you!


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

In Mufti said:


> _This incident means nothing beyond what happened along that road. _
> 
> _In every war, regardless of its popularity, these things are going to happen. The Marine Corps requires "Law of War" training to its members every year whether there is a war going on or not. When the shooting starts, it is anticipated that sooner or later there is going to be a tragedy and that's why they have a regular protocol for investigation and prosecution if it is suspected that a crime has been committed._
> 
> ...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> As for high crimes and misdemeanors, in 2004 the U.S. House assembled a list of 200+ misleading statements made by Bush and his administration on the subject of Iraq, many of them bald-faced lies. *If perjury* about a BLOW JOB * [is] valid grounds for impeachment*, intentional and methodical lying to Congress and the American people about the need for war, and committing our armed forces under false pretenses certainly qualify as valid grounds for impeachment.


Is there really some question about that?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I'm not so sure Pelosi is all that eager to impeach Bush.

Every stupid move he makes or coverup he does makes it more possible for a Democrat to be elected to the presidency in 2008. The Democrats could not buy this kind of an advantage for any amount of money. They want Bush and Cheney in there goofing things up.

Only some hotheads really want him impeached. Plus, any impeachment would probably harm the Democrats the same way Clinton's impeachment harmed the Republicans.

(The Republicans would be the same way if the shoe was on the other foot.)


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Actually, we kinda need more of this, minus the $2k grievance fee. Once the civilian population learns that they are not immune, they will quit serving as the logisitical partisan support for the Taliban and Al Qaeda (in Iraq). In reality we are fighting these wars too nicely.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

OK, so we're fighting this "too nicely". That sounds like the management idea that it's better to be feared than liked....you can impose your will, etc. Fairly easy to make people fear and avoid you.

But my question had to do with peacemaking (probably MUCH harder, takes MUCH longer to build trust). Self restraint don't come easy.

M


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I'm not so sure Pelosi is all that eager to impeach Bush.
> 
> Every stupid move he makes or coverup he does makes it more possible for a Democrat to be elected to the presidency in 2008. The Democrats could not buy this kind of an advantage for any amount of money. They want Bush and Cheney in there goofing things up.
> 
> ...


I'm not quite as sure the Democrat Congress is working out for them. They had a pretty big bounce and in Feb & Mar and seem to have squandered it.

Congress Approval Down to 29%; Bush Approval Steady at 33%
https://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27589


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I've never been asked how many people I helped rescue at sea,Ships assisted and oftentimes towed in for 3 days with only canned water and instant soup on my MLB, the smugglers of drugs, exotic birds and illegal immigrants intercepted or the suicides off the Golden Gate I recovered. No, people first frame my service with my brief participation in Vietnam and ask if I've ever killed anyone. Thats the USCG, a service more often insulted as some beach Lifeguard agency until Katrina and a silly Kevin Costner movie. I know the slurs my sister service friends heard and still hear. Baby Killer? Yeah, I took out a baby once. He was a acne competing with revolutionary beard moron from the Daily Worker in my face the day I moved into the University Dorms. And I'm still on half cock and no safety if anyone presumes such insult around me. I'm a Vietnam Era Vet, I'm crazy- begins twitching my eyelid and looking skyward at the News Service slick passing by. It's PTSD and the worst I'll get is actually getting admitted to a VA hospital promptly. Anybody want to see my gun collection? twitch,twitch.


----------



## Valhson (Mar 26, 2007)

I just want to point out that we will never know the entire story here. Not only because it is the media but because this happened with a Special Operations unit. If Force Recon got into something, right or wrong, it isn't going to be totally disclosed. The entire story is not there. We don't know and we are all taking stabs in the dark. These are not kids, they are not even normal force Marines. They are FORCE RECON. They are highly trained and I find it hard to believe this would have been their first encounter or exchange of fire.

Keep taking stabing at them. If it makes you feel better. 

Here is another bright idea. If you want a peacekeeper, train peace keepers! Don't send marines unless you are looking to finish something that was started with a few bombings on our soil.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

tabasco said:


> OK, so we're fighting this "too nicely". That sounds like the management idea that it's better to be feared than liked....you can impose your will, etc. Fairly easy to make people fear and avoid you.


Gordon Gecko aside, "management" and warfare are apples and oranges. If people do not like your company, they quit.



tabasco said:


> But my question had to do with peacemaking (probably MUCH harder, takes MUCH longer to build trust). Self restraint don't come easy.
> 
> M


So then, what you are saying, is that the troops should be there a VERY long time? You support the idea of troops there for at least several more years?


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> So then, what you are saying, is that the troops should be there a VERY long time? You support the idea of troops there for at least several more years?


Yeah, I think Afghanistan is a failed state and will require a very long time to turn around. Iraq *was *a failing state that we didn't much like. Different.

Yeah, I guess I'm saying that peacemaking requires a very long time (we're still in Korea, right ?).

However, my questions attempted to address the issues raised by the story: 
_ brigade commander in __ yesterday told the families of 69 civilians who were killed or wounded by members of an elite Marine Special Forces unit in March that he is "deeply, deeply ashamed" about the incident, describing the series of shootings along a civilian thoroughfare as a "terrible, terrible mistake."_

Again, my disclaimer: ain't a soldier, never been one. But to dismiss the incident as "these things happen" implies a tragic repetition until somebody figures out a better way to deal with fear and violence.

re: Special Forces/ "Force Recon" I've NO CLUE what that means. I am right in assuming they aren't freshly minted recruits ?

If, in fact "_They are highly trained and I find it hard to believe this would have been their first encounter or exchange of fire" _

How to explain the officer being "_deeply, deeply ashamed_" and the "_terrible, terrible mistake_" ? Seems to me a disconnect somewhere that requires investigation.

*Valhson*: _"Keep taking stabing at them. If it makes you feel better." _

excuse me, but just who do you think I'm "stabing" (sic) ?

*Valhson:*_ "Here is another bright idea. If you want a peacekeeper, train peace keepers! Don't send marines._

Yup, that's my point, however I was referring more to Irag than the situation in Afghanistan. I wasn't clear on the distinction. Sorry.

M


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

tabasco said:


> Yeah, I think Afghanistan is a failed state and will require a very long time to turn around. Iraq *was *a failing state that we didn't much like.* Different. *
> 
> Yeah, I guess I'm saying that peacemaking requires a very long time..


So then you are drawing a difference between "peacekeeping" in Afghanistan vs. Iraq?


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> So then you are drawing a difference between "peacekeeping" in Afghanistan vs. Iraq?


Ok, you've got me. I don't know how to keep the peace. I don't know how to fight in a war.

Afghanistan: THEY started it. i.e. must fight war and avoid disaster
Iraq: WE started it. i.e. must keep peace and avoid disaster

And just so I can keep the OP in mind and not highjack this thread like a 747, the story Washington Post story read:
_Nicholson said investigators with the __ are in Afghanistan interviewing witnesses and victims. *(*_*Maj. Gen. Frank H. Kearney III, who heads the Special Operations Central Command)*,_ told __ last month that no evidence has been found showing that the Marine unit took enemy fire after the suicide bomb was detonated._

Damn poor way to fight a war, or keep the peace, or win friends and influence people. There. I said it.

M
_ps. never been a warrior. never jumped out of helicopters to save drowning people _


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

tabasco said:


> Ok, you've got me. I don't know how to keep the peace. I don't know how to fight in a war.
> 
> Afghanistan: THEY started it. i.e. must fight war and avoid disaster
> Iraq: WE started it. i.e. must keep peace and avoid disaster


I am not trying to "get" you, I merely wished to know why the "peacekeeping" should be different. No matter why one is in a conflict, one *is in a conflict*, and you have proposed a superior way to deal with these. I would have to assume you figured the concept isomorphic, but then you started to draw distinctions.

So I have to assume then you feel the Dems push to remove the troops from Iraq is wrong headed and should be fought against and that really we need to push for an unlimited stay, or at least one of a "very long" duration?


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I am not trying to "get" you, I merely wished to know why the "peacekeeping" should be different. No matter why one is in a conflict, one *is in a conflict*, and you have proposed a superior way to deal with these. I would have to assume you figured the concept isomorphic, but then you started to draw distinctions.
> 
> So I have to assume then you feel the Dems push to remove the troops from Iraq is wrong headed and should be fought against and that really we need to push for an unlimited stay, or at least one of a "very long" duration?


To clarify: 
1. US administration policy regarding Iraq is incompetant and mistaken. The Iraqi parliament wants to take a 2 month vacation; and the US should recognize that democratically elected governements get to decide how and when to govern. We should declare victory and go home ASAP.

2. Afghanistan is different. It has elements of an indigenous narcotic based economy overlaid with effective terrorism, much like Columbia. Afghan Taliban pose another level of complexity, and their ability to control much of the geography of a known and admitted nuclear power like Pakistan is a much thornier issue. We need friends there.

Wayfarer, I didn't mean to imply you were out to "get me". My apologies, What I meant was my lack of experience with peace keeping and war making was now unveiled. 
M


----------



## Valhson (Mar 26, 2007)

tabasco said:


> Yeah, I think Afghanistan is a failed state and will require a very long time to turn around. Iraq *was *a failing state that we didn't much like. Different.
> 
> Yeah, I guess I'm saying that peacemaking requires a very long time (we're still in Korea, right ?).
> 
> ...


 First off, the comment was general; it was not directed at you. I see nothing in your posts as to where you are making any sort of stabs. (Yes, I see now that I spelled stabbing incorrectly.)

My point is that something happened. You, I and anyone else in this thread have no idea what happened nor will we. This was a special operations unit and don't you think it is strange that an Army Brigade commander is talking about it and not the Corp? Do you think you are going to get an accurate report of what happened? I don't only mean you I mean everyone. This is silly. I see arguments for argument sake.

If this happened with a regular infantry unit, I wouldn't question what happened. These were not regular Marines. They were there for a reason and something happened. If the squad leader f*ed up then okay but I really find it hard to believe that is the only conclusion that will come of this. All I am saying is that more happened, we don't know and I see general assumptions being made from a post that was intended to create a stir and nothing more. If this wasn't the purpose, then why titled as such with an article like that attached? Dare I say trolling? It has managed its goal and nothing more. I see very logical arguments coming from both camps, now and then, but how did Iraq end up in this tussle?

We are all entitled to our opinions.

Tabasco: If I offended you in anyway I am sorry. Nothing I had written was directed to single you or anyone out. Only to make an observation that seems to have escaped the majority here.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

tabasco said:


> The Iraqi parliament wants to take a 2 month vacation; and the US should recognize that democratically elected governements get to decide how and when to govern....Afghanistan is different.


Not in terms of having an elected government they are not, yet you cite this as a key point.



tabasco said:


> It has elements of an indigenous narcotic based economy overlaid with effective terrorism, much like Columbia.


So? Iraq has "effective terrorism" on a daily basis. No poppies sure, but that point is irrelevant.


tabasco said:


> Afghan Taliban pose another level of complexity, and their ability to control much of the geography of a known and admitted nuclear power like Pakistan is a much thornier issue. We need friends there.


They certainly do not control any geography that holds the nukes to my knowledge. And we already have friends there, as well as enemies, just like Iraq.

I am sorry, you are creating a classic distinction without a difference. If your "peacekeeping" will work in Afghanastan, it will work in Iraq. You have merely been led down the garden path by me and realize to hold the party line you must somehow seperate your proposed Afghan solution from being applied in Iraq or you have to endorse what your party/political affiliation does not want you to, namely supporting a continued stay of troops for "peacekeeping" in Iraq. If your methodology is as superior as your first proported, I cannot fathom why you are not supporting its use in Iraq, a much thornier issue.

Cheers


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

Valhson said:


> First off, the comment was general; it was not directed at you. I see nothing in your posts as to where you are making any sort of stabs.
> 
> Tabasco: If I offended you in anyway I am sorry. Nothing I had written was directed to single you or anyone out. Only to make an observation that seems to have escaped the majority here.


Hey, no problem.. no offense taken; I've learned that sometimes I mean to say something that didn't come out right (I'm married :icon_smile_big: ).

M


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> You have merely been led down the garden path by me and realize to hold the party line you must somehow seperate your proposed Afghan solution from being applied in Iraq or you have to endorse what your party/political affiliation does not want you to, namely supporting a continued stay of troops for "peacekeeping" in Iraq. If your methodology is as superior as your first proported, I cannot fathom why you are not supporting its use in Iraq, a much thornier issue.


Oh boy. A careful logician. I know I'm in trouble now :icon_smile_big: . Ok, like my wife reminds me, yes, I'm a walking/talking inconsistency.

But I didn't really sat WHAT my party/political affiliation was, did I ?

As to "_the methodolgy_ (I) _first_" purported, I asked questions as to lessons learned from history, past successes and the present tragedy of "terrible, terrible mistakes". Not political, not rhetorical.

M


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

tabasco said:


> But I didn't really sat WHAT my party/political affiliation was, did I ?


No you did not, was just taking a stab in the dark as you mirrored the current anti-Bush stance of "Afgan okay, Iraq bad". I also note you neither confirmed nor denied 



tabasco said:


> As to "_the methodolgy_ (I) _first_" purported, I asked questions as to lessons learned from history, past successes and the present tragedy of "terrible, terrible mistakes". Not political, not rhetorical.


Learning from history. Exactly why I pointed out your idea of "peacekeeping" seemed to be isomorhpic, ergo applied in your quote concerning the Scottish Regiment, you wished it applied in the case of the OP, and if isomorphic, should be applied in Iraq.

No harm, no foul. I was just exploring your willingness to apply the concepts you brought up to Iraq or not, and fair enough, you answered you did not think that should be the case. We are all just armchair quarterbacks here, all we can do is try and be consistent in our hypothetical approaches IMO.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Here's how terrible we are.

From the BBC's website:
https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6659585.stm

US detainee 'mentally tortured'

 
*A Pakistani-born US resident detained at Guantanamo Bay has said he was "mentally tortured" there, according to a transcript released by the Pentagon.* 
Majid Khan, who has been accused of planning to blow up petrol stations in the US, also described how he tried to commit suicide by chewing on an artery. 
Mr Khan presented a Statement of Torture to the US military tribunal reviewing his "enemy combatant" status. 
He was among 14 "high-value" detainees moved to Guantanamo Bay in September. 
The men were previously held in secret CIA prisons but are now being detained in a maximum security wing at the base in Cuba. 
Mr Khan moved to the US in the late 1990s, where he went to high school in Baltimore. 
The US government says that, on his return to Pakistan, family members introduced him to senior al-Qaeda leader Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. 
He is also accused of having links with fellow Guantanamo detainee Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, and of passing money to the Islamist militant group, Jemaah Islamiah (JI). 
*'Extensive torture'* 
At the tribunal at Guantanamo Bay on 15 April, Mr Khan denied he had any connection with Islamist militant groups such as al-Qaeda. 









"I am not an enemy combatant," he asserted. 
"I am not an extremist." 
"I have never been to Afghanistan and I have never met Osama bin Laden." 
Afterwards, Mr Khan's personal representative read out a written statement, in which he alleged psychological torture. 
"I swear to God this place in some sense worst than CIA jails. I am being mentally torture here," he said. 
"There is extensive torture even for the smallest of infractions." 
Mr Khan complained about how US guards had taken away pictures of his daughter, given him new glasses with the wrong prescription, shaved his beard off, forcibly fed him when he went on hunger strike, and denied him the opportunity for recreation. This led him to attempt to chew through his artery twice, Mr Khan said. Later, Mr Khan produced a list of further examples of psychological torture, which included the provision of "cheap, branded, unscented soap", the prison newsletter, noisy fans and half-inflated balls in the recreation room that "hardly bounce". 

-------------------------------

Oh, no! Unbranded soap! Noisy fans! Half-inflated balls! Newsletters!

How do we live with ourselves?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

I bet he was given single ply TP also.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

fenway said:


> "There is extensive torture even for the smallest of infractions."
> Mr Khan complained about how US guards had taken away pictures of his daughter, given him new glasses with the wrong prescription, shaved his beard off, forcibly fed him when he went on hunger strike, and denied him the opportunity for recreation. This led him to attempt to chew through his artery twice, Mr Khan said. Later, Mr Khan produced a list of further examples of psychological torture, which included the provision of "cheap, branded, unscented soap", the prison newsletter, noisy fans and half-inflated balls in the recreation room that "hardly bounce".
> 
> Oh, no! Unbranded soap! Noisy fans! Half-inflated balls! Newsletters!
> ...


I have never heard of such horrendous atrocities in my entire life. We should be ashamed of ourselves. I mean, trying to feed someone who is starving themselves to death? What kind of people are we? This says it all!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Personally, I would take a cyanide-pill before using unbranded soap!


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

First, the "Marine Corps" didn't do anything, it was the "Soldiers" who did it. 

Second, we're here and those soldiers are there. Don't judge their actions from your comfy Monday morning quarterback chair. I equate it to a hornets nest, that suicide bomber stirred up the hornets and unfortunately some innocent people got stung. If we were in that same situation, we would have killed some innocent people also. Why, because when you're trying to stay alive, you don't have time to check the roster to see if everyone on the other side is player or a spectator.

Third, only two people have given their lives for us. Jesus gave his life for our souls and the American G.I. has given his life for our freedom.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Kav said:


> Hits REWIND button on VCR, hits STOP and hits PLAY. Jack Nicholson in Marine greens is on the stand. While Jack is delivering his now classic speech may I make one small observation? Many of the forum members here have a wide, often eclectic range of political views. Most of those individuals arrived at their personal world view from life experiences; military service,travel, academics, witnessing history in different lands and cultures or mores passed on by family members who did. For better or worse, right or wrong they all walked the walk on the world stage. And then there are those, who sit in the dark theater of life, feet up on the backrest in front, slurping on their 32 oz Doctor Peppers condemning the Jack Nicholsons and hoping the lights come on promptly so they can find the exit again.. SEMPER FI!


Kav,

If I cold have said that as well as you, I would have.....


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Gentlemen,KAV!!*

Gentlemen,

I have enjoyed this immensely. Thank you, been enjoying life. Kav, Semper Fi to you my friend.I enjoyed your piece there.IMMENSELY!!!

My friends, do not watse any more of your lives on this, from another military type, I will put it simply.
**** happens my friends, everywhere.
Add the dynamics of a battle zone, and things happen quickly.
I applaud the Corps for what they did this day.
They fought a battle, for all of you.
Put it to rest, have a drink, enjoy your lives.

Nice day my friends


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Sorry!*

Gentlemen

I did not know c r a p was a no/no. I am sorry!
LOL

Nice day


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

DukeGrad said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> I have enjoyed this immensely. Thank you, been enjoying life. Kav, Semper Fi to you my friend.I enjoyed your piece there.IMMENSELY!!!
> 
> ...


Exposing probable murder is never a waste of time.

Have another drink, maybe your conscience will stop screaming at you.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Gentlemen*

Frank DC,

You have no military experience Frank DC, it is obvious. We dont call this murder in the military; we have another word for this, and if you want to learn this word. Spend some time in the Corps, and you will learn this word.

Nice day my friends, off to the Falwell forum.
Jimmy


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Jimmy,

Just ignore FrankDC. if it were up to him the Taliban would still be in power and South Korea wouldn't exist. He could care less about human rights and is merely interested in attacking the US incessantly - a right FrankDC enjoys bc of your service and defense of our country. 

Karl


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Karl*

Karl,

Thanks a lot Karl, I know this very well. And he has every right to do this, thanks to his freedom.
I am actually trying to push his button for a change. Got nothing to do tonight, maybe I will have that drink he recommends!
LOL

Nice evening Karl, gentlemen


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

DukeGrad said:


> Karl,
> 
> Thanks a lot Karl, I know this very well. And he has every right to do this, thanks to his freedom.


If my freedom is dependent on a bunch of Marines driving around and randomly shooting unarmed civilians, you can certainly have it.[/quote]


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> overwhelming that you cannot see your own hand in front of your face?
> 
> One last question for FrankDC . . are you an actual person or just a caricature of yourself? I ask this in all seriousness because I just cannot believe that an actual human-being exists out there, even in this crazy, mixed-up world we live in, that believes the things that you do. You are either certifiably crazy, on drugs, or simply causing trouble for the sake of causing trouble, you know, playing devils advocate at all times.
> 
> My humble opinion.


whomewhat,
I believe you've offered a good definition of a troll, above. When we feed them, they just get energized, never sated.

I believe that you have said that you have a son in the Marines. And whnay has a sister that graduated West Point, and was in Iraq.

One of the great things about our country is the freedoms we take so casually and feel entitled to. So a lot of what is said in these message boards goes in one ear and out the other ear for me. Like the opinions of some of our posters.

But I really take umbrage at those that are not supportive of our military. And I don't mean blind approval of any action they take, right or wrong. *I mean supporting them as the heroes they are, and the sacrifices they make*. Among other things, protecting our freedoms to have message boards like this and have different opinions.

While I have had disagreements with the implementation of this administrations policies, I couldn't conceive of not being supportive of our military, and considering them to be heroes.

What got me going on this rant, was the OP. Unless the OP has better specific ideas for dealing with the situations our military encounters, I don't think he contributes anything by being critical of our military. It was a terrible tragedy. But, after the tragic incident in Afghanistan descibed in the OP, what would the OP have done other than convene an investigation, issue an apology, and pay the $2000 solatia payments?

Does the OP have any idea of the sacrifice and hard work our military are doing in an incredibly difficult situation?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

rnoldh said:


> While I have had disagreements with the implementation of this administrations policies, I couldn't conceive of not being supportive of our military, and considering them to be heroes.
> 
> What got me going on this rant, was the OP. Unless the OP has better specific ideas for dealing with the situations our military encounters, I don't think he contributes anything by being critical of our military. It was a terrible tragedy. But, after the tragic incident in Afghanistan descibed in the OP, what would the OP have done other than convene an investigation, issue an apology, and pay the $2000 solatia payments?


Your question is best answered with another question. Be honest now: how many of you reading this thread were even aware this incident took place, prior to reading my original post?

I never claimed anything more needs to be done.



rnoldh said:


> Does the OP have any idea of the sacrifice and hard work our military are doing in an incredibly difficult situation?


I've answered that question elsewhere in this forum. In my view our armed forces represent one of the largest squanderings of national wealth in human history, and with very few exceptions, every one of their "incredibly difficult situations" since WWII have been caused by the exact same Pentagon misrepresentation, military adventurism and Executive Branch genital waving. Over and over and over again. If you're interested in genuinely supporting our troops, call your elected representatives and demand they be brought back home.

BTW have you seen this year's defense budget? SIX HUNDRED AND FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS. These are the same people who're telling us Social Security needs to be "fixed".


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Memorial day is in 11 days. Leans over FrankDC and whispers in his ear ( share these sentiments at your workplace with coworkers.) I dare you.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Kav said:


> Memorial day is in 11 days. Leans over FrankDC and whispers in his ear ( share these sentiments at your workplace with coworkers.) I dare you.


I remember and honor our war dead from WWII and prior. And speaking of WWII, blind patriotism and unconditional support of armed forces is precisely what gave rise to the Third Reich.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Forget your coworkers. They are either emotionaly callused to your drivel or illegals afraid to respond. Go to a Memorial day service and anounce the Marines in Afghanistan are murdering babykillers. Now I double dare you.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Kav said:


> Forget your coworkers. They are either emotionaly callused to your drivel or illegals afraid to respond. Go to a Memorial day service and anounce the Marines in Afghanistan are murdering babykillers. Now I double dare you.


Double dare? What about double secret probation? Really now, yours are the words of an emotionally disturbed six year old.

With the exception of those who're the subject of this thread, I wouldn't accuse "the" Marines of being murderers. I even (probably not to the extent or cost that you might) defend their presence in Afghanistan, which is one of the "few exceptions" I mentioned earlier. WRT Iraq I can't cut Cheney and Bush the same moral slack. I just can't do it. Even the last Pope said this invasion was "not legally or morally justified".


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Even the last Pope said this invasion was "not legally or morally justified".


The Pope? How many divisions does he have?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Is this the "evil" pope or the "good" pope? It is getting hard to keep track.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

Falwell, the Pope: Evil

OBL: emotionally confused

FrankDC: LOL


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Is this the "evil" pope or the "good" pope? It is getting hard to keep track.


I dunno, but I think this lets W off the hook with the Pope's condemnation over the war!


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Is this the "evil" pope or the "good" pope? It is getting hard to keep track.


Evil or good to the extent to which Frank agrees with him. Its not enough to have a mere disagreement anymore with the left, they actually hate you because of your opinions. Sign of the times I guess.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Is this the "evil" pope or the "good" pope? It is getting hard to keep track.


I know. Two people. Must make your pea brains just explode.

People are people. IMO John Paul II was a moral giant, and the current Pope is whatever the exact opposite of that is.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I know. Two people. Must make your pea brains just explode.


So should I pout over the ad hom the way you always do?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Memorial Day, V.A. Wadsworth in Los Angeles. I'll be in the cafeteria at high noon, wearing a forum square. Most of the baby killers post WW2 are in wheelchairs or the head injury ward. But theres a whole bunch of us Vietnam vintage Arlo Guthrie mother stabber father rapers a sittin on the bench there. We're just sittin on the bench there. But should you show up, I'll start yellin KILL,KILL,KILL and all us greying, paunch bellied mother stabber, father rapers will see how well you imitate a SPAD launched from the 5th floor. I double double dare you Franck. If you watched A Christmas Story you know you have to show, or forever be known as a pathetic wus.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Kav said:


> Memorial Day, V.A. Wadsworth in Los Angeles. I'll be in the cafeteria at high noon, wearing a forum square. Most of the baby killers post WW2 are in wheelchairs or the head injury ward.


Aside from the two drafts since WWII, it's natural selection hard at work.

So sad, so sad. The lives of 100,000+ young Americans (not to mention something in the neighborhood of one hundred trillion dollars) flushed right down the toilet.

We could have created a global paradise, we chose war and death instead. GOD FORGIVE US.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Aside from the two drafts since WWII, it's natural selection hard at work.


I'll put this as nice as I can...

Go **** yourself.


----------



## Valhson (Mar 26, 2007)

Frank, I do have a serious question for you. 

You stated that you honor the veterans of WWII but not those after. With the current situation of two theaters of operation, and a stated resistance to civilian causalities, how can a distinction be made between WWII being okay to honor and the modern veteran not? We sort of have some parallels here&#8230; Japan attacked us, Terrorists attacked us&#8230;. We entered Europe (due to allies)&#8230; we entered Iraq (due to ???) Either way we were not directly attacked. 

We carpet bombed entire cities in WWII, killing countless civilians, and that in your mind is okay and different from modern warfare? A Force Recon unit gets into a situation and kills 19 civilians, wounds 50 and you are ready to condemn *ALL *veterans? I have to be honest sir, I don't understand. Would you be kind enough to clarify your point?


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Maybe what happened in Afghanisan was a good thing? Street cred?

From the WSJ:

https://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010080

*Was Osama Right?* 
Islamists always believed the U.S. was weak. Recent political trends won't change their view. 

*BY BERNARD LEWIS* 
_Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT_

During the Cold War, two things came to be known and generally recognized in the Middle East concerning the two rival superpowers. If you did anything to annoy the Russians, punishment would be swift and dire. If you said or did anything against the Americans, not only would there be no punishment; there might even be some possibility of reward, as the usual anxious procession of diplomats and politicians, journalists and scholars and miscellaneous others came with their usual pleading inquiries: "What have we done to offend you? What can we do to put it right?" 
A few examples may suffice. During the troubles in Lebanon in the 1970s and '80s, there were many attacks on American installations and individuals--notably the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, followed by a prompt withdrawal, and a whole series of kidnappings of Americans, both official and private, as well as of Europeans. There was only one attack on Soviet citizens, when one diplomat was killed and several others kidnapped. The Soviet response through their local agents was swift, and directed against the family of the leader of the kidnappers. The kidnapped Russians were promptly released, and after that there were no attacks on Soviet citizens or installations throughout the period of the Lebanese troubles.









These different responses evoked different treatment. While American policies, institutions and individuals were subject to unremitting criticism and sometimes deadly attack, the Soviets were immune. Their retention of the vast, largely Muslim colonial empire accumulated by the czars in Asia passed unnoticed, as did their propaganda and sometimes action against Muslim beliefs and institutions.

Most remarkable of all was the response of the Arab and other Muslim countries to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979. Washington's handling of the Tehran hostage crisis assured the Soviets that they had nothing to fear from the U.S. They already knew that they need not worry about the Arab and other Muslim governments. The Soviets already ruled--or misruled--half a dozen Muslim countries in Asia, without arousing any opposition or criticism. Initially, their decision and action to invade and conquer Afghanistan and install a puppet regime in Kabul went almost unresisted. After weeks of debate, the U.N. General Assembly finally was persuaded to pass a resolution "strongly deploring the recent armed intervention in Afghanistan." The words "condemn" and "aggression" were not used, and the source of the "intervention" was not named. Even this anodyne resolution was too much for some of the Arab states. South Yemen voted no; Algeria and Syria abstained; Libya was absent; the nonvoting PLO observer to the Assembly even made a speech defending the Soviets. 
One might have expected that the recently established Organization of the Islamic Conference would take a tougher line. It did not. After a month of negotiation and manipulation, the organization finally held a meeting in Pakistan to discuss the Afghan question. Two of the Arab states, South Yemen and Syria, boycotted the meeting. The representative of the PLO, a full member of this organization, was present, but abstained from voting on a resolution critical of the Soviet action; the Libyan delegate went further, and used this occasion to denounce the U.S. 
The Muslim willingness to submit to Soviet authority, though widespread, was not unanimous. The Afghan people, who had successfully defied the British Empire in its prime, found a way to resist the Soviet invaders. An organization known as the Taliban (literally, "the students") began to organize resistance and even guerilla warfare against the Soviet occupiers and their puppets. For this, they were able to attract some support from the Muslim world--some grants of money, and growing numbers of volunteers to fight in the Holy War against the infidel conqueror. Notable among these was a group led by a Saudi of Yemeni origin called Osama bin Laden. 







To accomplish their purpose, they did not disdain to turn to the U.S. for help, which they got. In the Muslim perception there has been, since the time of the Prophet, an ongoing struggle between the two world religions, Christendom and Islam, for the privilege and opportunity to bring salvation to the rest of humankind, removing whatever obstacles there might be in their path. For a long time, the main enemy was seen, with some plausibility, as being the West, and some Muslims were, naturally enough, willing to accept what help they could get against that enemy. This explains the widespread support in the Arab countries and in some other places first for the Third Reich and, after its collapse, for the Soviet Union. These were the main enemies of the West, and therefore natural allies. 
Now the situation had changed. The more immediate, more dangerous enemy was the Soviet Union, already ruling a number of Muslim countries, and daily increasing its influence and presence in others. It was therefore natural to seek and accept American help. As Osama bin Laden explained, in this final phase of the millennial struggle, the world of the unbelievers was divided between two superpowers. The first task was to deal with the more deadly and more dangerous of the two, the Soviet Union. After that, dealing with the pampered and degenerate Americans would be easy. 
We in the Western world see the defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union as a Western, more specifically an American, victory in the Cold War. For Osama bin Laden and his followers, it was a Muslim victory in a jihad, and, given the circumstances, this perception does not lack plausibility.









From the writings and the speeches of Osama bin Laden and his colleagues, it is clear that they expected this second task, dealing with America, would be comparatively simple and easy. This perception was certainly encouraged and so it seemed, confirmed by the American response to a whole series of attacks--on the World Trade Center in New York and on U.S. troops in Mogadishu in 1993, on the U.S. military office in Riyadh in 1995, on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000--all of which evoked only angry words, sometimes accompanied by the dispatch of expensive missiles to remote and uninhabited places.

Stage One of the jihad was to drive the infidels from the lands of Islam; Stage Two--to bring the war into the enemy camp, and the attacks of 9/11 were clearly intended to be the opening salvo of this stage. The response to 9/11, so completely out of accord with previous American practice, came as a shock, and it is noteworthy that there has been no successful attack on American soil since then. The U.S. actions in Afghanistan and in Iraq indicated that there had been a major change in the U.S., and that some revision of their assessment, and of the policies based on that assessment, was necessary. 
More recent developments, and notably the public discourse inside the U.S., are persuading increasing numbers of Islamist radicals that their first assessment was correct after all, and that they need only to press a little harder to achieve final victory. It is not yet clear whether they are right or wrong in this view. If they are right, the consequences--both for Islam and for America--will be deep, wide and lasting. _Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East" (Oxford University Press, 2004)._


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Aside from the two drafts since WWII, it's natural selection hard at work.


Referring of course to armed forces enlistment. There we have it folks, the elitest liberal viewpoint set forth for all to see. FrankDC to all you grunts: I am more evolved than you!


----------



## Valhson (Mar 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Aside from the two drafts since WWII, it's natural selection hard at work.





FrankDC said:


> So sad, so sad. The lives of 100,000+ young Americans (not to mention something in the neighborhood of one hundred trillion dollars) flushed right down the toilet.
> 
> We could have created a global paradise, we chose war and death instead. GOD FORGIVE US.





Global paradise? I am sorry but how is that possible when I have seen you on the individual level enter into member bashing, stating that they were soon to bash you in that post. Which I would believe was not even on their mind as they had posted three times prior to your assault.

Peace is peace and if you want your global paradise maybe you should follow your own hippy rhetoric and start with yourself, sir.


*Wayfarer:* It was indeed noted.  I would however like FrankDC to explain how carpet bombing entire German cities was more honorable than the death/killing of 19 Afghanis


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Referring of course to armed forces enlistment. There we have it folks, the elitest liberal viewpoint set forth for all to see. FrankDC to all you grunts: I am more evolved than you!


Typical leftist - troops are our "sons and daughters" and "children" when they're bewailing the injustice of a war with which they disagree and it serves their political agenda (as FrankDC did earlier in this thread). At all other times, troops are basically baby killers and scum of the earth to them.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Referring of course to armed forces enlistment. There we have it folks, the elitest liberal viewpoint set forth for all to see. FrankDC to all you grunts: I am more evolved than you!


FWIW, even Kerry said he mis-spoke.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Aside from the two drafts since WWII, it's natural selection hard at work.
> 
> So sad, so sad. The lives of 100,000+ young Americans (not to mention something in the neighborhood of one hundred trillion dollars) flushed right down the toilet.
> 
> We could have created a global paradise, we chose war and death instead. GOD FORGIVE US.


Nothing like mixing God and hate. And; you have an issue with Falwell? LOL


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> We could have created a global paradise, we chose war and death instead. GOD FORGIVE US.


Choice of music to go with this reading:

Option 1:
Kumbayah my Lord, kumbayah
Kumbayah my Lord, kumbayah
Kumbayah my Lord, kumbayah
Oh Lord, kumbayah

Option 2:
Imagine theres no heaven,
Its easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Option 3:
I'd like to build the world a home
And furnish it with love
Grow apple trees and honey bees
And snow-white turtle doves

Chorus:
I'd like to teach the world to sing
In perfect harmony
I'd like to hold it in my arms
And keep it company


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Referring of course to armed forces enlistment. There we have it folks, the elitest liberal viewpoint set forth for all to see. FrankDC to all you grunts: I am more evolved than you!


My son graduated highschool at age 16 and went to into the Marine Corps at age 17. He had job offers to write computer programs from company's, all over the world. He was offered scholarships to several universities, including his father, myself, offering to pay for any university he wanted to attend. He chose the Marine Corps. He has an IQ in the very high genius range and scored off the charts on his ASVADS. I am certain he is far more intelligent than FrankDC. I am also quite certain he loves his country far more than FrankDC because he has put up where FrankDC ought just shut up. It is easy to criticize anything and everyone all day long like FrankDC does, but there are a few real men and women out there who get it. FrankDC, on the other hand, is clueless. I am clueless about one thing, I will admit, and that is why FrankDC is still permitted to post on AAAC when he clearly has absolutely nothing to say about fashion, rather, he has chosen this forum as a place for him to spew his venom against all who disagree with him, and given his thought process, that is many. Far be it for me to agree with Whnay, but "Go **** yourself."


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Option 4- it's a small World After All. No doubt where Franck had an early epithany working at Disneyland one summer and ingesting some substance without medical or spiritual supervision.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

People like FrankDC are not real people, they are characters in a movie. I was trying to remember who it was that FrankDC reminded me of and then it hit me. The movie "Red Dawn." 

The US is invaded by the then Soviet Union/Cuba alliance. Some of the highschool kids go up into the mountains and form a resistance. The resistance creates a lot of havoc and the military leadership for the soviets looks for ways to put a stop to it. He talks to the mayor(FrankDC) of the city who has a son that was a leader at his highschool and speculates that the mayor's/FrankDC's son may be involved. FrankDC says, paraphrasing: "Oh no, my son is a good boy, he would not be doing any of that." The soviet commander asks who would be doing that then. FrankDC responds: "Well, there are some families, you know, who are trouble makers." He then gives the names of these families to the soviet commander who rounds them all up and places them in front of a firing squad and kills them all. Ring a bell FrankDC?


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> People like FrankDC are not real people, they are characters in a movie. I was trying to remember who it was that FrankDC reminded me of and then it hit me. The movie "Red Dawn."
> 
> The US is invaded by the then Soviet Union/Cuba alliance. Some of the highschool kids go up into the mountains and form a resistance. The resistance creates a lot of havoc and the military leadership for the soviets looks for ways to put a stop to it. He talks to the mayor(FrankDC) of the city who has a son that was a leader at his highschool and speculates that the mayor's/FrankDC's son may be involved. FrankDC says, paraphrasing: "Oh no, my son is a good boy, he would not be doing any of that." The soviet commander asks who would be doing that then. FrankDC responds: "Well, there are some families, you know, who are trouble makers." He then gives the names of these families to the soviet commander who rounds them all up and places them in front of a firing squad and kills them all. Ring a bell FrankDC?


Wolverines!

What a terrible movie.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

A common thread through-out this entire thread: *LOYALTY*.

Outrage at perceived betrayal by a presumed member: i.e. "American" FrankDC seems to be the most current aspect.

As I've acknowledged previously, I've no military experience. However I understand loyalty; to family, friends, team, company, etc.

FrankDC, you are missing an essential here:* loyalty*. I suspect your response may be "I am loyal to humanity, not to a nation"; a concept I understand and can respect. However, you can't get so far in front of those you "lead", that they cannot follow. Be a member of the group, 
humanity or America.

"Get back to where you belong". Lennon or McCartney or Ringo, etc.

The incident in the OP was, by all, acknowledged a tragedy. May we not mourn the dead, and those unfortunate soldiers we (collectively) asked to travel on our behalf and redress our wrong? I cannot imagine the horror of war and the fear that contributes to similar incidents. It seems every conflict has them whether the US is involved or not. The result of a limited skill-set to dealing with conflict. The US is at least as good at institutiuonalizing justice and truth as ANY other nation.

I grieve for those living participants in this conflict. Soldiers of ANY nation, families of ANY victim wounded or killed. Yes, I can dream of some other, more noble way of conflict resolution. But, please. You're here in the US. Vote, pay your taxes, sing the national anthem and pray for enlightenment. 
Love, 
M


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

tabasco said:


> A common thread through-out this entire thread: *LOYALTY*.
> 
> Outrage at perceived betrayal by a presumed member: i.e. "American" FrankDC seems to be the most current aspect.
> 
> ...


You suspect incorrectly.

If our founding fathers were alive today and saw the outrageous size, scope and obscene bloat of our current federal government, and the permanent war/armaments industry created after WWII that has sucked up trillions upon trillions of tax dollars, they'd be screaming and ranting as loud if not louder than I am. They also, given the proposal of inane and insane foreign policies such as "preventive invasion", would explain it's not America's place to "go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy" (quoting John Quincy Adams). Did you know the Pentagon has presented this exact same "preventive invasion" foreign policy to every U.S. president since WWII? And every one of them rejected it. It was only a matter of time before the Pentagon found suitable dupes, in one George W. Bush and one Dick Cheney.

So who are the true Americans in this debate? In my view, not you, and not others who spew blind patriotism and hero worship of our armed services. I consider those things to be supremely un-American and dangerous. Our armed services aren't heroes, they're a rarely needed evil, and (again, apart from a few exceptions) misled and unwitting pawns of a grossly overreaching Executive Branch and Pentagon. THAT is the bottom line in my view. I've been considering and reevaluating this opinion for 30+ years and it hasn't changed one bit during that time.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> If our founding fathers were alive today and saw the outrageous size, scope and obscene bloat of our current federal government, and the permanent war/armaments industry created after WWII that has sucked up trillions upon trillions of tax dollars, they'd be screaming and ranting as loud if not louder than I am. They also, given the proposal of inane and insane foreign policies such as "preventive invasion", would explain it's not America's place to "go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy" (quoting John Quincy Adams).


First point: the permanent war/armaments industry created after WWII.

The world changed after WWII. We were caught asleep prior to WWII and determined that it would not happen again. You call it wasted money . . I call it being prepared.

Second Point: The world changed after 9/11.

Even during WWII, the US was still considered untouchable by our enemies. A little known fact, to some anyway, is that all throughout the war many of the countries of the world were secretly shipping their most prized possessions to the US for storage at Fort Knox. Why? Fort Knox is located on a huge military base and is smack dab in the middle of the country. It was considered, and in many ways still is, invulnerable to attack. It is not only the most protected location in the world it is the most secure location in the world by virtue of geography. Times have changed, however, as 9/11 proved.

Our Founding Fathers could not possibly have envisioned the technology and weaponry that would be available in the world today rendering every part of the world vulnerable, even places previously thought to be invulnerable.

As to "go[ing] abroad, in search of monsters to destroy?" Some would call that hunting down our enemies. This is not some unreasoned search for an enemy mind you, we were attacked, on our homeland, in a way that no one could have possibly imagined, certainly not our Founding Fathers.

My vision of government is one that is quite limited. First and foremost I see the role of government as protecting its citizens. While you talk about all of the money you wish had been spent on your vision of paradise, our Founding Fathers saw the role of government as protecting ALL of its citizens. Spending money to do the things you would like are the things that our Founding Fathers precisely tried to escape when they came here. They wanted a limited government, one that protected its citizens. Like it or not, in todays world, given todays technology, it takes a lot of money.

Finally, it is not blind patriotism to support our troops. I agree it would be blind to support any and all conflicts our political leaders get us into, but it is certainly not blind patriotism to support the troops who do their duty. I know it is lost on liberals, but their is a reason why we have civilian leadership making political decisions and a military who carries it out. The moment our fine young men and women serving this country start to question orders then you get the kind of military you had in Iraq, one that runs at the first sign of conflict.

Our soldiers, when doing their duty, have to be immune from the type of politcal criticism you spew at them because they would otherwise be unable to fulfill their duty. They serve, honorably. Our politicians are elected and when they make decisions that we do not like then we can vote them out of office. If they commit crimes, then they can be impeached before the next election. Our military, however, must follow orders or they cease to function effectively. To criticise them for doing their job IS unpatriotic.

I believe in calling it like it is FrankDC and you, sir, ARE unpatriotic because of the idiotic remarks you have made and charges you have leveled against our troops, men and women doing their jobs. I understand you are a troll, just here to cause trouble, but when I think of all that my son gave up so that he could serve his country, because of his love of country, I am sickened when I read remarks like yours, remarks made out of ideological hatred. You talk of paradise, paradise in your own image, and yet you are so full of hatred. How can anyone so full of hate talk of anything virtuous and good?

My only hope, FrankDC, is that when the terrorists attack us again, and they will, that you are in the shopping mall where the bomb goes off. Mind you, I do not hope you die in the explosion, rather, I hope you live to see the horror that your kind has perpetuated because of blind hatred of all things George Bush. If your hero, Bill Clinton, had been President when the attacks on 9/11 had ocurred he would have done the exact same thing George Bush did. As much as I dislike the man myself, I know he would have carried out his duty to protect us from our enemies, just as George Bush did. The only difference? You would be annointing his feet with sacred holy oil for doing so instead of calling him a traitor. I just wish all of you libs would be honest about your beliefs, just once, and admit this is about having lost power, nothing more. You thought you were going to have 16 years of liberal nervana, first Clinton and then Gore, and you just cannot accept that George Bush outsmarted all of you. You love to call him stupid, but it seems to me he was smart enough to beat you guys, twice. Yeah, I know, it was Rove, but he was smart enough to have Rove there, wasn't he? Ask yourself this? If George Bush is such an idiot, how is it that you superior intellects could not beat him, twice?

So please, quit taking your hatred of George Bush out on our troops. These are some of the very finest young men and women our country has. Or maybe you prefer the likes of such role models as Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, and Brittany Spears? This Memorial Day I will be honoring my sons, my brother, my father, my grandfathers, my great-grandfathers, and all others who have served and or died for this country. I will not be honoring any specific conflicts they served in, no, I will be honoring them for doing their duty, and so should you, unequivocably.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> First point: the permanent war/armaments industry created after WWII.
> 
> The world changed after WWII. We were caught asleep prior to WWII and determined that it would not happen again. You call it wasted money . . I call it being prepared.


Oh give us a break! "Prepared" since WWII has consisted of flying our troops halfway around the world and interjecting them into the civil wars of other countries.



whomewhat said:


> Second Point: The world changed after 9/11.
> 
> Even during WWII, the US was still considered untouchable by our enemies. A little known fact, to some anyway, is that all throughout the war many of the countries of the world were secretly shipping their most prized possessions to the US for storage at Fort Knox. Why? Fort Knox is located on a huge military base and is smack dab in the middle of the country. It was considered, and in many ways still is, invulnerable to attack. It is not only the most protected location in the world it is the most secure location in the world by virtue of geography. Times have changed, however, as 9/11 proved.


And as I've said twice before, I defend our military action in Afghanistan and believe it was one of the very few cases since WWII where it was actually necessary.



whomewhat said:


> Our Founding Fathers could not possibly have envisioned the technology and weaponry that would be available in the world today rendering every part of the world vulnerable, even places previously thought to be invulnerable.


Our current president and his administration have been spewing the same fear and terror on a daily basis for nearly six years now, and has been milking it politically for every drop it's worth. Meanwhile, the core group we know was responsible for planning and financing 911 -- and their core support structure -- almost SIX YEARS LATER, are still wandering around free as birds. Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mullah Omar et al.



whomewhat said:


> As to "go[ing] abroad, in search of monsters to destroy?" Some would call that hunting down our enemies. This is not some unreasoned search for an enemy mind you, we were attacked, on our homeland, in a way that no one could have possibly imagined, certainly not our Founding Fathers.


Wrong:



whomewhat said:


> My vision of government is one that is quite limited. First and foremost I see the role of government as protecting its citizens. While you talk about all of the money you wish had been spent on your vision of paradise, our Founding Fathers saw the role of government as protecting ALL of its citizens. Spending money to do the things you would like are the things that our Founding Fathers precisely tried to escape when they came here. They wanted a limited government, one that protected its citizens. Like it or not, in todays world, given todays technology, it takes a lot of money.


No, it takes some money. Not an obscene amount of money:
https://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp



whomewhat said:


> Finally, it is not blind patriotism to support our troops. I agree it would be blind to support any and all conflicts our political leaders get us into, but it is certainly not blind patriotism to support the troops who do their duty. I know it is lost on liberals, but their is a reason why we have civilian leadership making political decisions and a military who carries it out.


I'll not waste any more time with you, as your last set of claims sum up the true extent of your ignorance. You have no clue how our permanent shadow government works; the fact that the primary job of any government agency -- INCLUDING THE PENTAGON -- is not to do their intended jobs but simply to keep themselves employed, in business and growing; the fact that the first thing all of our representatives are confronted with after they're elected is a relentless and concerted brainwashing campaign from the Pentagon, convincing them that threats to our national security lurk around every corner and under every rock, etc etc.

I don't blame you personally, or others in this thread, as the level of ignorance about these realities among Americans today is both astonishing and nearly ubiquitous. The Bush/Rove propaganda campaign that hoodwinked the American people into supporting the invasion of Iraq proved, once and for all, that approximately 70% of you can be fooled into believing absolutely anything.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> You suspect incorrectly.
> 
> *If our founding fathers were alive today and saw the outrageous size, scope and obscene bloat of our current federal government, and the permanent war/armaments industry created after WWII that has sucked up trillions upon trillions of tax dollars, they'd be screaming and ranting as loud if not louder than I am.* They also, given the proposal of inane and insane foreign policies such as "preventive invasion", would explain it's not America's place to "go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy" (quoting John Quincy Adams). Did you know the Pentagon has presented this exact same "preventive invasion" foreign policy to every U.S. president since WWII? And every one of them rejected it. It was only a matter of time before the Pentagon found suitable dupes, in one George W. Bush and one Dick Cheney.
> 
> So who are the true Americans in this debate? In my view, not you, and not others who spew blind patriotism and hero worship of our armed services. I consider those things to be supremely un-American and dangerous. Our armed services aren't heroes, they're a rarely needed evil, and (again, apart from a few exceptions) misled and unwitting pawns of a grossly overreaching Executive Branch and Pentagon. THAT is the bottom line in my view. I've been considering and reevaluating this opinion for 30+ years and it hasn't changed one bit during that time.


Where's Bill and Ted when you need them? WYLD STALLYNS!


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

The Washington Post and Global Issues as sources? You liberals are so funny what with your condescending tones and commentary: "I don't blame you personally, or others in this thread, as the level of ignorance about these realities among Americans today is both astonishing and nearly ubiquitous." So only you know the truth? Only you have the answers? Only you understand what is really going on? Only you have a grasp of reality? Narcissism at its finest!

As to Bin Laden, well, if your hero Bill Clinton had done his job, had taken the threat more seriously, then Bin Laden would not have been around to celebrate 9/11, would he?

"I defend our military action in Afghanistan and believe it was one of the very few cases since WWII where it was actually necessary."

So any soldiers serving in that theatre of operation, you support? You see that is where we are truly different. I believe that ALL of our honorable service men and women deserve our full support, regardless of the theatre of operation they are assigned to. How do you come to terms with a soldier who maybe served in Afhanistan, but was then sent to Iraq?

"I'll not waste any more time with you, as your last set of claims sum up the true extent of your ignorance."

Sure you will. You cannot help yourself. Oh, you will find some convenient excuse for breaking your own promise, but then you will comment further. You just cannot help yourself. Even if you really wanted to, your other self, that scary little voice you hear in your head, would make you do it. You have a neurotic and erotic gratification derived from admiration of your own mental attributes, which is a normal condition for you at the infantile level of personality development you have attained. I forgive you, FrankDC.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

"Give us a break" Oh dear,oh dear, oh dear- Frank, you've managed the crowning diplomatic feat of alienating every replying poster to your drumhead courtmartial of the Marines regardless of our political persuasions or opinion on the Iraq War. "give us a break?" Are you suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder? ( gay lesbian named Francine- Don't answer him Frank, he wants to rape me! Overwieght 16 y/o with acne named Fritz- NO! Frank NO! remember that day in 5th period physical education when they threw my clothes into the girl's locker room.)


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> The Washington Post and Global Issues as sources? You liberals are so funny what with your condescending tones and commentary: "I don't blame you personally, or others in this thread, as the level of ignorance about these realities among Americans today is both astonishing and nearly ubiquitous." So only you know the truth? Only you have the answers? Only you understand what is really going on? Only you have a grasp of reality? Narcissism at its finest!


Not only me. Fortunately the means still exist for Americans to educate themselves about these matters. Unfortunately we've become too lazy to bother.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

"Unfortunately we've become to lazy to bother." And a third personality shows itself, Fat Frank- Hey, I wanted to surf the web for canadian camm girls tonight. It's my turn and you all agreed I could come out every 30 days.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I'll not waste any more time with you, as your last set of claims sum up the true extent of your ignorance.





whomewhat said:


> Sure you will. You cannot help yourself. Oh, you will find some convenient excuse for breaking your own promise, but then you will comment further. You just cannot help yourself. Even if you really wanted to, your other self, that scary little voice you hear in your head, would make you do it. You have a neurotic and erotic gratification derived from admiration of your own mental attributes, which is a normal condition for you at the infantile level of personality development you have attained. I forgive you, FrankDC.





FrankDC said:


> Not only me. Fortunately the means still exist for Americans to educate themselves about these matters. Unfortunately we've become too lazy to bother.


And there you have it!


----------



## In Mufti (Jan 28, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> You suspect incorrectly.
> 
> So who are the true Americans in this debate? In my view, not you, and not others who spew blind patriotism and hero worship of our armed services. I consider those things to be supremely un-American and dangerous. Our armed services aren't heroes, they're a rarely needed evil, and (again, apart from a few exceptions) misled and unwitting pawns of a grossly overreaching Executive Branch and Pentagon. THAT is the bottom line in my view. I've been considering and reevaluating this opinion for 30+ years and it hasn't changed one bit during that time.


You really are a dumb ass.

Take off the tinfoil hat, go take a shower this week sometime (don't forget to turn on the water and use soap) and comb the mats out of your stringy hair. Get some clean underwear. Then go outside and get some fresh air.

You need professional help pal.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

In Mufti,

Don't forget that Francis has inferred that the existence of South Korea is a tragedy, that the United Nations was WRONG to respond to North Korean aggression and that he declines to honor the Allied war dead from Korea. Francis also believes it to be a tragedy that the Taliban is no longer in power and that the NATO mission to Afghanistan is criminal. He has also defended Soviet oppression in Eastern Europe.

Francis hasn't meet a tyranny he won't defend except for the Nazis - though I suspect had he been around at the time he would have been quite pleased with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. And now Francis tells us in some sort of crie de couer of the crazed, that he has analyzed and agonized over these issues for thirty years. That should tell us that if he has embraced nonsensical views for thirty years it would be folly for us to expect him to embrace logic and reason now. 

Perhaps Francis will have a road to Damascus conversion - but if not he can at least continue on to Damascus to partake in the defense of yet another tyrant.

Karl


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

fenway said:


> Wolverines!
> 
> What a terrible movie.


Fenway,

Red Dawn is a masterpiece! An ensemble cast that included such greats as Patrick Swayze and Jennifer Grey! Soviet Mi-24 Hind attack helicopters being taken on with hunting rifles! A Nicaraugan colonel leading anti-partisan activities in Colorado! Powers Boothe briefing the Wolverines about the 600 million Chinese and the doughty old UK still holding out along with Free America against the Communist onslaught! Fantastic I tell you!

Check the 1988 ABC miniseries Amerika (about a Soviet takeover of the US) for terrible cinema.

Karl


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Our armed services aren't heroes, they're a rarely needed evil, and (again, apart from a few exceptions) misled and unwitting pawns of a grossly overreaching Executive Branch and Pentagon. THAT is the bottom line in my view. I've been considering and reevaluating this opinion for 30+ years and it hasn't changed one bit during that time.


Frank, you are indeed an idiot...and a cowardly one at that! Have you ever considered dragging your sniveling, cowardly a** out from behind the anonymity of a keyboard and try living your values, rather than simply spewing your senseless venom. Those soldiers, you are so quick to demean (though, I doubt you would ever have the courage to hurl your insults in their presence), are living their citizenship, not just talking about it. It is not what we say about this great Nation that makes it great...it is what we put into it that does so!

So, Frank, it is no suprise that your opinion has not changed in 30 years...just disappointing!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> Frank, you are indeed an idiot...and a cowardly one at that! Have you ever considered dragging your sniveling, cowardly a** out from behind the anonymity of a keyboard and try living your values, rather than simply spewing your senseless venom. Those soldiers, you are so quick to demean (though, I doubt you would ever have the courage to hurl your insults in their presence), are living their citizenship, not just talking about it. It is not what we say about this great Nation that makes it great...it is what we put into it that does so!
> 
> So, Frank, it is no suprise that your opinion has not changed in 30 years...just disappointing!


In today's culture of hero worship of armed forces it takes far more courage to speak one's conscience than go with the flow. I also, unlike most of those who disagree with me in this forum to the point of launching personal attacks, use my real name. I also have stood up for my beliefs in the presence of members of our armed services, who to date have never wagged their private parts or attempted to intimidate in response, the way you seem to think is somehow patriotic.

You talk about backing up your beliefs. The defense of my beliefs is not dependent upon driving around residential neighborhoods and randomly shooting unarmed civilians -- or downplaying and making excuses for that behavior.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

The defense of your beliefs is dependent on taking those actions out of context and politicizing them, at least sometimes.

I do appreciate that you are not a knee-jerk liberal in all your beliefs. However, sometimes, some of the posters here, including you, and including some of your opponents appear to word things solely to get each others goats instead of trying to advance your arguments.

The title of this thread is quite low, and you would not have chosen it if you were trying to be fair about anything.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> The defense of your beliefs is dependent on taking those actions out of context and politicizing them, at least sometimes.
> 
> I do appreciate that you are not a knee-jerk liberal in all your beliefs. However, sometimes, some of the posters here, including you, and including some of your opponents appear to word things solely to get each others goats instead of trying to advance your arguments.
> 
> The title of this thread is quite low, and you would not have chosen it if you were trying to be fair about anything.


Agreed. If I had to do it over again I would have chosen a more intelligent and less confrontational title. As I said, I don't blame "the" Marines for this incident.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Our armed services aren't heroes, they're a rarely needed evil, and (again, apart from a few exceptions) misled and unwitting pawns of a grossly overreaching Executive Branch and Pentagon. THAT is the bottom line in my view. I've been considering and reevaluating this opinion for 30+ years and it hasn't changed one bit during that time.





FrankDC said:


> As I said, I don't blame "the" Marines for this incident.


When you call our honorable service men and women "a rarely needed evil," and "misled and unwitting pawns," it is really the height of hypocritically ingenuous thought to then try and claim you "don't blame the Marines." And please, stop putting the word "the" in quotes when referring to the Marines as if you are actually distinguishing between all Marines and the ones involved in this incident. With every post you make, every word you write, it is clear that you loathe the military and you are simply trying to be politcally correct like your Democrat comrades by pretending to support the troops, but just not their mission. You HATE our troops, indeed, your HATE period, and that makes you evil and wicked yourself. "Wickedness never was happiness." This is why you are so terribly unhappy FrankDC. You keep attacking those who defend your right to do so and I will keep on defending those that defend you.

FrankDC states:

"I also have stood up for my beliefs in the presence of members of our armed services, who to date have never wagged their private parts or attempted to intimidate in response."

FrankDC also states:

"Aside from the two drafts since WWII, it's natural selection hard at work."

FrankDC, you have proven with your own words that you are wrong. You criticize the members of our armed forces, calling current recruits "natural selection hard at work," butthen give an example of just how good and decent these fine soldiers are. If you have "stood up for [your] beliefs in the presence of our armed services" in the same or a similar manner that you have stood up here, and they restrained themselves (I would not and could not have) then you have demonstrated with absolute certainty that these are the very finest America has to offer.

Let us compare and contrast those fine men and women you just spoke of with the liberal brats at our fine universities that tried to throw a pie in the face of Anne Coulter. Liberals are the ones who resort to violence when they hear speech they disagree with, whereas members of our armed forces remain ladies and gentlemen, even in the face of FrankDC. Now that is restraint! Your own words Frankie!

"I also, unlike most of those who disagree with me in this forum to the point of launching personal attacks, use my real name."

Your real, actual name is FrankDC? Okay.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Ann Coulter deserves a pie in the face. She is just as destructive as Al Sharpton.

I would love to hit both of them with a custard missile.

The leftists seem to behave a bit worse publicly when they don't get their way and there are a lot more examples of the rioting, etc.

There have been some appallingly violent incidents from right wing extremists, too though. The left has never done anything quite like Oklahoma City, as destructive as they can be sometimes.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> The leftists seem to behave a bit worse publicly when they don't get their way and there are a lot more examples of the rioting, etc.
> 
> There have been some appallingly violent incidents from right wing extremists, too though. The left has never done anything quite like Oklahoma City, as destructive as they can be sometimes.


Historically, right wing extremists have a lot more blood on their hands. When we start talking about groups like the KKK, WAR etc. Tens of thousands more Americans have been killed by these groups over the last 150 years than by left-wing extremist groups. The KKK _still_ has ~150 active chapters in the U.S.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Historically, right wing extremists have a lot more blood on their hands. When we start talking about groups like the KKK, WAR etc. Tens of thousands more Americans have been killed by these groups over the last 150 years than by left-wing extremist groups. The KKK _still_ has ~150 active chapters in the U.S.


FrankDC, again, hate to intrude with you know, facts and crap that never seem to bother you. Let me toss out one name. Hugo Black. Big backer of the New Deal. Appointed to the Supreme Court. No, the KKK was once a very powerful force in the world of Democrat politics. Do not let these bothersome facts in anyway enlighten you though, m'kay?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Frank, is one of your multiple personalities an iraqi radar installation? you keep switching on with these posts knowing your going to get bombed. Was Cain a liberal or conservative? Extremism is just that, and to paint with a broad brush in Type O + blood any political bent as having murdered more or less is about as meaningfull as calling Hitler a rightwinger and Stalin a leftist. And as for your 150 KKK active chapters? Sorry, 149. I worked with the membership of the Conejo Valley branch. Together they had almost a full set of teeth and an I.Q. approaching 79. One made the blunder of making a slur against Jews in front of the one jewish girl in the breakroom. I announced I was a Jew and asked him to step outside AND do bring your brother. We were halfway to the parking lot when company security escorted them off the prperty and chewed me out. I'm a liberal who walks my walk. Again, Wadsworth V.A. Memorial Day, noon.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> FrankDC, again, hate to intrude with you know, facts and crap that never seem to bother you. Let me toss out one name. Hugo Black. Big backer of the New Deal. Appointed to the Supreme Court. No, the KKK was once a very powerful force in the world of Democrat politics. Do not let these bothersome facts in anyway enlighten you though, m'kay?


Where do the words Republican or Democrat appear in the phrases "right-wing extremism" or "left-wing extremism"? The KKK, WAR etc are now and always have been right-wing extremist groups.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Kav said:


> Frank, is one of your multiple personalities an iraqi radar installation? you keep switching on with these posts knowing your going to get bombed. Was Cain a liberal or conservative? Extremism is just that


That's exactly the point I'm making, too. See my response to WF.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Where do the words Republican or Democrat appear in the phrases "right-wing extremism" or "left-wing extremism"? The KKK, WAR etc are now and always have been right-wing extremist groups.


Seriously, you are just immune to reality it seems. A New Deal supporter is really a right wing extremist? I have actually now officially heard it all. The Klan was at one time anti-industrialist, pro-union, "progressive" party by and large. Next you are going to tell me that Robert Byrd is a "right wing extremist" no doubt.

The Klan has undergone many changes in its history and it seems to me has always been a somewhat populist organization. That alone should tell you it was certainly not "right wing extemist" for its entire history, if it is even at this time. Give up Frank.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Seriously, you are just immune to reality it seems. A New Deal supporter is really a right wing extremist? I have actually now officially heard it all. The Klan was at one time anti-industrialist, pro-union, "progressive" party by and large. Next you are going to tell me that Robert Byrd is a "right wing extremist" no doubt.
> 
> The Klan has undergone many changes in its history and it seems to me has always been a somewhat populist organization. That alone should tell you it was certainly not "right wing extemist" for its entire history, if it is even at this time. Give up Frank.


The KKK: "at one time, a "progressive" party by and large".

And y'all call _me_ a troll?

Not sure what could possibly be added to WF's latest bit of hilarity. I'll let it stand on its own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan


So you know, Frankie, I decided to actually review one of your "sources," and it is interesting what it says:

"These organizations have often used *terrorism*, violence and acts of intimidation such as cross burning to oppress African Americans and other groups."

"The modern KKK *has been repudiated by all mainstream* media and *political** and **religious** leaders*."



FrankDC said:


> The KKK, WAR etc are now and always have been right-wing extremist groups.


The KKK are terrorists Frankie, terrorists, pure and simple. Your own "source" says nothing about "right-wing extremists." Do you just make this stuff up as you go along or do you play the role of unbelievably stupid so convincingly that you know that your sources will never be checked by anyone and therefore include them thinking they will support your otherwise completely unsupportable positions?

And lets not just gloss over Mr. Wayfarer's salient point about the "Honorable" Democrat Senator Robert Byrd. Byrd is currently President _pro tempore_ of the United States Senate of the 110th United States Congress, a position that puts him third in line to the presidency behind Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In 1942 24 year-old Byrd joined the Ku Klux Klan, which he had seen holding parades in Matoaka, West Virginia, as a child. Byrd was unanimously elected to be the leader, known as the Exalted Cyclops, of his local chapter. 
Byrd commented on the 1945 controversy raging over the idea of racially integrating the military. Byrd, when he was 28 years old, wrote to segregationist Senator Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi, in which Byrd vowed never to fight:
_Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."_[3] He had earlier written Bilbo:
_I shall never fight in the armed forces with a ***** by my side_Byrd joined with other Southern and border state Democrats to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964, personally filibustering the bill for 14 hours - a move he now says he regrets.

On March 4, 2001, Byrd said race relations:
_"Are much, much better than they've ever been in my lifetime.... I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us ... I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that. There are white . I've seen a lot of white ******* in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."_[30] Byrd's use of the term "******" created immediate controversy, When asked about it, Byrd apologized for the language: " 'I apologize for the characterization I used on this program,' he said. 'The phrase dates back to my boyhood and has no place in today's society. [...] 'In my attempt to articulate strongly held feelings, I may have offended people.'

This man is from YOUR Party Frankie, and he has an excuse for everything he has ever done or said. The funny thing is, the very same people who give this deeply racist man a pass on everything are the ones who find fault with everything GWB does and says. Now Frankie, if you can find it in your heart to forgive a pig such as Byrd, if you can believe his constant excuses for all the bad he has done and said . . . oh, forget it . . . there is no hope for people like you.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> The KKK: "at one time, a "progressive" party by and large".
> 
> And y'all call _me_ a troll?
> 
> ...


First, EXCELLENT misquote of me ya idiot.

Do you even read your sources Francis? Obviously not. Here's a nice little quote *from your source*



> .... in Alabama, the state's Klansmen were among the foremost advocates of better public schools, effective prohibition enforcement, expanded road construction, and other "progressive" political measures.


I am tired of embarrassing you, it has become boring even for me. Carry on Francis, Sgt. Hulka is laughing his arse off.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Gee, I've been gone for a week (25th wedding anniversary) and everybody's still going at it with Frank? This thread has taken on a life of it's own. Maybe we can add a FrankDC forum to AAAC.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

At work, there's a fellow with no friends and no social life who stops by quite frequently to ask me work-related questions that he knows the answers to, in order to generate a little human contact.

And all I can think of is "Poor bastard."

That's FrankDC.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

fenway said:


> At work, there's a fellow with no friends and no social life who stops by quite frequently to ask me work-related questions that he knows the answers to, in order to generate a little human contact.
> 
> And all I can think of is "Poor bastard."
> 
> That's FrankDC.


I have a friend who watches no TV except Fox News, reads nothing except Newsmax, listens to nothing on the radio except Rush Limbaugh, and sincerely believes he has some kind of clue about what's actually going on in the world around him.
And all I can think is, "Poor bastard."
That's fenway.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

fenway said:


> At work, there's a fellow with no friends and no social life who stops by quite frequently to ask me work-related questions that he knows the answers to, in order to generate a little human contact.
> 
> And all I can think of is "Poor bastard."
> 
> That's FrankDC.


That's sad,fenway.Poor Guy.


----------



## SoutherWinds (May 24, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> I have a friend who watches no TV except Fox News, reads nothing except Newsmax, listens to nothing on the radio except Rush Limbaugh, and sincerely believes he has some kind of clue about what's actually going on in the world around him.
> And all I can think is, "Poor bastard."
> That's fenway.


Fox News is good for nothing but a good laugh. There is no educational value to any of their broadcasts.


----------



## Untilted (Mar 30, 2006)

c'mon guys, stop making each other feel like sh**. 

drink some beer, blow some lines, we gotta live it up while we are alive!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

SoutherWinds said:


> Fox News is good for nothing but a good laugh. There is no educational value to any of their broadcasts.


So, which news do you watch? How is the educational value there?


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Frank DC*

Frank,

Wow, now we are into the KKK. You have a knack for rearranging your politics, and forums!
I agree with the gentlemans recommendation to have a couple beers and leave this one to rest.
Nice day gentlemen


----------

