Ok, Get in Here

i won't point out the glaring problems with your position since there are people like anthony zinni and karen kwiatkowski (yes, i watched c-span pretty much all night last night) who can do a much better job so instead i'll nitpick:

It's no surprise that the biggest opponents of war are the shlubs who sit at home being arm chair politicians.

you could just as easily have said "proponents" and your statement would still be true. if you oppose a war, how is it unusual that you wouldn't be fighting in it?
 
Reign in Acai said:
Words can't change a thing

Guess I don't need to read your post then... :Spam:



Seriously, your views are the EPITOME of the rural south. What the hell are you doing in LA? Move yourself to Taylorsville, North Carolina and bask in the glow of liberty
 
I don't condone acts of terrorism, but I'll agree with the basic argument that we have made an error in demonizing terrorists and using the fear of another 9/11 to manipulate the public, for the reason that it gives a distorted view of our rationale for war and discourages understanding of what drives people to commit terrorism in the first place. And believing that any government, not just the US, puts security above monetary self-interests is simply naive IMO.
 
Reign in Acai said:
I was looking up pics of terrorism to prove a point, and came across what could be MFJ sans the party hat.

my_terrorist3_lead.jpg
oh my god, I didn't read the text at first and thought it looked like him:lol:
 
Man, why do Conservatives hate Liberals so damn much? I mean, I grew up in politics, it wasnt really a choice for me when your dad run's Federal campaigns you dont have much of a choice. Its obvious in politics most Liberals dont exactly agree with Conservatives, but in my experience Conservatives just despise liberals. In an age where this country is OBVIOUSLY becoming far more conservative, Liberals are still getting bashed for owning the media and destroying the country.
 
Mormagil said:
i won't point out the glaring problems with your position since there are people like anthony zinni and karen kwiatkowski (yes, i watched c-span pretty much all night last night) who can do a much better job so instead i'll nitpick:



you could just as easily have said "proponents" and your statement would still be true. if you oppose a war, how is it unusual that you wouldn't be fighting in it?

Well according to all you liberals. The soldiers are fighting with bayonets in their backs. The entire military is comprised of tree hugging hippies who signed up thinking they were submitting a form to publishing clearing house. Afterall, all the soldiers have been sent over there to die against their own will right?

My point was not whether you would be fighting for a war in which you oppose. But rather, if most liberals would have the brass to sign up to begin with. Most military people I know and have met are either hardcore conservatives, or shlubs who know no better. The latter usually fall under the branch of the army, the former usually fall under the branch of the marines. And uhh guess who's always the first ones in?
 
Yea instead it turned into 11 pages of me arguing against half the forum. All due in part because I called Iofstorm a faggot. I guess doing such an outlandish thing is only allowed in "designated" threads.
 
Actually, AWMM should probably be on the Billy Milano board.


My friend, who spent a voluntary year in Iraq and is also a college student, had this to say: "Most americans don't have a college education, so most Americans have the same education as the average soldier, and considering the education opportunities in the military in terms of free college and specialized training, the average soldier is probably smarter than the average American, as he is asked to make life or death desicions every day."


But even he admits that the origin of the war is not due to "protecting America" but more about Bush's personal agendas and the influences of people with a lot of money. And that, while there were small ties between Bin Laden and Iraq and evidence of nuclear possession, it was a dumb decision to jump right in.


Just another perspective.
 
Well according to all you liberals. The soldiers are fighting with bayonets in their backs. The entire military is comprised of tree hugging hippies who signed up thinking they were submitting a form to publishing clearing house. Afterall, all the soldiers have been sent over there to die against their own will right?

i don't think that at all. while there are probably some soldiers who feel that way most of them are there to do their job and they're trying to do it well. people talk about "supporting the troops", well, i think as long as we're going to keep them there we should at least support them with a workable strategy for winning instead of just waving a flag and saying, oh, well we're going to be there for a while, who really knows what could happen, let's let future presidents worry about it. you hear a lot about setting aside political considerations in wartime, which is perfectly understandable, but it should go both ways.
 
BTW, my friend went from being a hardcore conservative to a left-leaning-moderate during that stint...
 
that's what happened to me and i didn't even have to go to iraq. the administration is for lack of better words, fucked up.
 
Erik said:
This thread urgently needs to die

yea. I agree.

It's quite obvious that AWMM and his opinions differ from most of our, at least in some degree. That said, he's entitled to his opinion and he managed to remain mildly civil throughout the discussion, and though I'm basically ont he opposite end of the spectrum, I agree on a few points and will give him kudos for a good debate.

:wave:

Thank you sir, I love a good debate.
 
quick lock before he responds so it looks like we won, then i'll make a sig that says official debate master and ascii artist of sot