Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Anyone pro-surge must be pro-draft

Anyone pro-surge must be pro-draft
Thread Tools
spindler
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Beverly Hills
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2007, 10:54 PM
 
For four years the far right claimed that anyone against the war didn't "support the troops", wasn't a real American, etc. They claimed America's future was on the line. Yet as it is obvious to anyone that victory is not near, I don't see any of them calling for a draft. How can you be for winning this war but it hasn't occurred to you to use the 299,000,000 Americans who have never been in the military to help the 150,000 troops in Iraq win?

I would like every pro-surge and every pro-"we'll be there until the mission is done" to state as the first sentence in your first paragraph whether you are for a draft right now or not and why.

Note to liberals who are slow on the uptake. I am a liberal and I am for leaving Iraq. The point of this thread is to find out whether conservatives are just chickenhawks that send others off to war. I have to state this because no matter how obvious something is some dummy always comes in missing the entire point of the thread and derails it. But my second choice besides leaving would be a draft, because leaving troops there simply to lose is unAmerican.

Now, the surge increased the number of troops from 120,000 to 150,000. IS IT NOT OBVIOUS that in a policing situation that more numbers generally is better and scales more than linearly? IS IT NOT OBVIOUS that when you have 50 Americans patrolling a neighborhood rather than 5 it is much safer for everyone because it is harder to plant IEDs, roadside bombs, and do random gunfire? IS IT NOT OBVIOUS THAT safer Iraqis means more employment and wealthier Iraqis and so less reason for people to join the terrorist groups?

Answer this conservatives and everyone else, do you agree that American troops do not fight INSTEAD of Americans, but simply BEFORE other Americans? If a mission requires 150,000 troops to comfortably win, then the 150,000 volunteers fight it. But do you agree that THE VERY INSTANT that it then requires 200,000 troops to win that 50,000 Americans are then REQUIRED to fight? Do you agree that it is unAmerican and criminal that any American soldier should be less safe and have more chances of dying simply because there are not enough other Americans to back them up and secure their current mission?

Whoever heard of the great American Military fighting for 15 years picking up little scraps here and there? This is an absolute ****ing disgrace. Why should 150,000 troops struggle when 3,000,000 Americans (20x more) could come in and win this World War 2 style? 3,000,000 Americans could secure Iraq and force the terrorists mostly out. At that point if the Iraqi citizens weren't willing to defend themselves then they deserve what they get.

I would say that anyone who support other troops "surging" but isn't in favor of a draft to really win this is just a nasty draft dodging coward. I would say they are the real surrender monkeys, not the French in World War 2. So explain to me how anyone could be so gung ho back then but now not notice that there are 299,000,000 millions Americans sitting at home who have never been in the American military and only maybe 10,000,000 adult Iraqi men. How could 3,000,000 drafted Americans with guns not control 10,000,000 Iraqis?
( Last edited by spindler; Aug 15, 2007 at 11:12 PM. )
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 12:20 AM
 
Thanks for your service.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 12:52 AM
 
No draft. And I want more tax cuts. This is teh best war evah! And yes, I support our troops. With a bumper sticker. Magnetic, so it can be removed without harming the paint on my SUV.
     
spindler  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Beverly Hills
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 03:33 AM
 
In case you missed it, my point is NOT that a draft is the right thing to do at this time. My point is that if you are for this endless war, then obviously you should want to win it now and with full force.

Don't make jokes because this leaves room for these guys to wiggle. Any liberal should be demanding to know why conservatives want this job done, but aren't really for getting this job done if they themselves have to get involved. A draft is the obvious step for anyone who wants the job done, so why aren't they screaming for it, not hiding from it?
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 03:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by spindler View Post
In case you missed it, my point is NOT that a draft is the right thing to do at this time. My point is that if you are for this endless war, then obviously you should want to win it now and with full force.

Don't make jokes because this leaves room for these guys to wiggle. Any liberal should be demanding to know why conservatives want this job done, but aren't really for getting this job done if they themselves have to get involved. A draft is the obvious step for anyone who wants the job done, so why aren't they screaming for it, not hiding from it?
Because it's a talk tough situation.
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 03:53 AM
 
We'd be done and dusted in Iraq by now if the politicians didn't have to pander to the whiney libs back home and make the soldiers pussyfoot around. You know, if the soldiers had *all* methods available to them (i.e. putting panties on prisoners' heads).

The male Arab mind only understands brutality in warfare (see Vlad Tepes, he knew what he was doing). To have your troops be nice to folks shows weakness, which invites insurgency. That's a fact.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 03:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by spindler View Post
For four years the far right
The "far right" is the libertarians. The libertarians don't support external offensives.

Originally Posted by spindler View Post
Note to liberals who are slow on the uptake.
There are liberals who aren't slow on the uptake?

Originally Posted by spindler View Post
I am a liberal and I am for leaving Iraq.
So, you're just pissed that you signed up for the military and you're now being sent into action. Perhaps thought you'd spend your time patrolling outside the local army base and peeling spuds, eh?

Nobody "sent" you off to war - you signed up to do so.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
spindler  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Beverly Hills
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 04:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
We'd be done and dusted in Iraq by now if the politicians didn't have to pander to the whiney libs back home and make the soldiers pussyfoot around. You know, if the soldiers had *all* methods available to them (i.e. putting panties on prisoners' heads).
Sounds like you are making this lame excuse because you are unwilling to fight in a war you are happy to send others off into. Whether or not you are for randomly beating up people, this tactic would not have any real effect on the outcome of the war. If terrorists are willing to die, how would abusing them by putting panties on their head have any effect on the outcome of the war? it's all a smokescreen for your cowardice.

Thanks for answering my question Doofy. You are a coward who would casually vote for and support and yell at liberals to allow 150,000 troops to lose their lives and their legs and their arms in battle. But when the battle needs more people, you wouldn't sign up of send your friends or family. Then you abandon the troops because fighting is for them and not you.

I guess you DON'T really want to win after all. You DON'T want to add 2,000,000 troops to the 150,000 there to actually win this. Sounds like YOU are the whiney coward, not the liberals.
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 04:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
To have your troops be nice to folks shows weakness, which invites insurgency. That's a fact.
Nope. Going to another country that the enemy isn't and dethroning the dictator*, that invites insurgency.

*I think getting rid of Saddam is a good thing, just not good timing.
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 04:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by spindler View Post
Sounds like you are making this lame excuse because you are unwilling to fight in a war you are happy to send others off into. Whether or not you are for randomly beating up people, this tactic would not have any real effect on the outcome of the war. If terrorists are willing to die, how would abusing them by putting panties on their head have any effect on the outcome of the war? it's all a smokescreen for your cowardice.

Thanks for answering my question Doofy. You are a coward who would casually vote for and support and yell at liberals to allow 150,000 troops to lose their lives and their legs and their arms in battle. But when the battle needs more people, you wouldn't sign up of send your friends or family. Then you abandon the troops because fighting is for them and not you.

I guess you DON'T really want to win after all. You DON'T want to add 2,000,000 troops to the 150,000 there to actually win this. Sounds like YOU are the whiney coward, not the liberals.
Seems like you don't know, but Doofy is from over the pond.
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
spindler  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Beverly Hills
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 04:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Nobody "sent" you off to war - you signed up to do so.
Absolutely completely false. There are prerequisites to sending American troops or any troops off to war that go without saying. One is that the voters have very carefully made sure it is absolutely necessary and could not be avoided. Americans can't just drop the troops wherever it feels good.

The second is that if you are willing to send a soldier off to die then the situation must be serious enough that you yourself would be willing to die.

Do you think Americans just get to send the soldiers to fight and die because their **might** be some threat here or there? The test that any sane person uses is that unless one believes the threat to the U.S. is so large that they would send their own son off to fight then they should not be sending someone else off to fight.

Once again, I am not against the idea that this war must be fought and won. I person can honestly hold that opinion. I am against sending troops off to die on a whim, which you obviously feel is OK. You obviously feel like you can send soldiers anywhere you want even if you wouldn't be willing to fight.

You appear to be saying that Americans or any countrymen can just send their troops off to fight anywhere at anytime without regard for the outcome or the cost of victory. This is disgusting.
     
spindler  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Beverly Hills
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 04:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Rumor View Post
Nope. Going to another country that the enemy isn't and dethroning the dictator*, that invites insurgency.
Two things Rumor. First, I realize Doofy is English I believe. Second, if you post anything whatsoever off topic in these thread the instinct of these conservative cowards will be to use it to go off topic and avoid the question. Let's stick on them and call them for what they are. Chickenhawks.
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 05:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by spindler View Post
Two things Rumor. First, I realize Doofy is English I believe. Second, if you post anything whatsoever off topic in these thread the instinct of these conservative cowards will be to use it to go off topic and avoid the question. Let's stick on them and call them for what they are. Chickenhawks.
If that is the case then you can say the same thing about the liberals.

Neither of them want to see their children go to war. The "conservatives" have a tendency to be pro-war but don't want their children to join. The "liberals" are anti-war and don't want their children to join.

In both of their eyes, it's all good as long as their children don't join.
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 05:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by spindler View Post
Sounds like you are making this lame excuse because you are unwilling to fight in a war you are happy to send others off into.
No, I'm telling you that because I know what I'm talking about. See, when a couple of Libyans blew a friend of mine out of the sky in 1988, I took it upon myself to figure out why folks do these things that they do. That, combined with an IQ equivalent to your entire battalion put together, makes me pretty much an expert.

Originally Posted by spindler View Post
Whether or not you are for randomly beating up people, this tactic would not have any real effect on the outcome of the war.
Yes, it would.

Vlad understood this. Your PsyOps perhaps understands this (but is muzzled by your politicians). You don't.

Originally Posted by spindler View Post
Thanks for answering my question Doofy. You are a coward who would casually vote for and support and yell at liberals to allow 150,000 troops to lose their lives and their legs and their arms in battle.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Give me total control of the allied forces in Iraq and I'll have the problem sorted for you within months. Yes, that's right, I'll personally go there and sort it out for you. But it'll be playing by *my* rules, not by the ones your politicians make up to keep the libs back home happy.
Oh, and I'd want paying for my time too.

So far, nobody has taken me up on this offer. It's stood for two years and it still stands.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 05:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by spindler View Post
Absolutely completely false.
So, the US Army knocked down your door in the middle of the night and forced you to join them?

You signed up to be a soldier and fight for your country. Nobody forced you to do so. Period.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 05:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Rumor View Post
Nope. Going to another country that the enemy isn't and dethroning the dictator*, that invites insurgency.
Tell me about the insurgency after you deposed Noriega then.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
spindler  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Beverly Hills
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 05:34 AM
 
"If that is the case then you can say the same thing about the liberals. In both of their eyes, it's all good as long as their children don't join."

That is absolutely false. Liberals have been against this from day one. The troops would have been home a long time ago if liberals had their way.

Here is what you can accuse liberals of. If there is ever a time we really NEED to fight and conservatives are willing to go but liberals aren't then liberals will be to blame for not contributing to their country's security.

If a person is pro-war you why wouldn't they be ready fight if it would help the cause? You can be pro-war but you better be willing to fight.

If you are anti-war you can be blamed but only when it is for clearly selfish reasons, like fighting obviously must be done but that duty is being abandoned. Being anti-war is of utmost necessity when it is right. It of course is cowardice when fighting obviously needs to be done.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 05:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by spindler View Post
That is absolutely false. Liberals have been against this from day one.
Except all the libs in Amnesty International who were all like "something must be done about the brutal dictator Saddam!", of course.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 06:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by spindler View Post
Don't make jokes because this leaves room for these guys to wiggle. Any liberal should be demanding to know why conservatives want this job done, but aren't really for getting this job done if they themselves have to get involved. A draft is the obvious step for anyone who wants the job done, so why aren't they screaming for it, not hiding from it?
Draft obvious choice?

Why would I argue with you about something I don't even agree with you on. That would be absurd.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 06:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
So, you're just pissed that you signed up for the military and you're now being sent into action. Perhaps thought you'd spend your time patrolling outside the local army base and peeling spuds, eh?

Nobody "sent" you off to war - you signed up to do so.
Exactly. If you signed up for the military, you signed up to go to war. AT ANY TIME.

There are no ifs, ands or buts about it.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 06:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by spindler View Post
That is absolutely false. Liberals have been against this from day one. The troops would have been home a long time ago if liberals had their way.
I suggest you do some history searching. The liberals wasn't against it till it became election time. This has been gone over time and time again. Shall we get the sound bites out again?

This whole anti-going into Iraq thing was a PURE POLITICAL SHILL. The Dems wanted the presidential seat back.

That is why so many senators flip-flopped in the middle of it all. Which happened to be all at the same time, right before election season.

Transparent as the morning dew.
     
Powerbook
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: München, Deutschland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 06:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
The male Arab mind only understands brutality in warfare (see Vlad Tepes, he knew what he was doing). To have your troops be nice to folks shows weakness, which invites insurgency. That's a fact.

Ja! Ja! Why not getting the knowledge of people who are the best in their respective field: I said it all the time - war is for the Germans. Just get some divisions of the famous Waffen-SS, I bet after doing the job they would have no problems scratching the remains of whatever insurgency of their boots.



PB.
Aut Caesar aut nihil.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 07:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Except all the libs in Amnesty International who were all like "something must be done about the brutal dictator Saddam!", of course.
And Bill Clinton who said their would never be peace in Iraq or that the world wouldn't be a safe place till Saddam was gotten rid of.

He knew what NEEDED to be done. Just never did it. Don't want to make TOO Many wavs.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 08:01 AM
 
Spindler said:

"If terrorists are willing to die, how would abusing them by putting panties on their head have any effect on the outcome of the war? it's all a smokescreen for your cowardice."

Abuse? Naaa. Try embarrass.

Humiliate them so to prevent further humiliation they might tell us where the rest of the bad guys are. I'd rather, when the prisoners are no longer of value, they are killed and dumped somewhere. Eye for and Eye and all...

I'm also puzzled as to why as a "Liberal" you aren't already familiar with cowardice.

Perhaps we wouldn't be there at all if SADDAM had followed the cease fire agreements with the UN in 1991. These events DO HAVE A HISTORY!
     
Sky Captain
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on till morning
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 08:25 AM
 
In 1990 I got sent to the Gulf.
I wasn't thrilled but I knew what I had signed up for.
The idea of getting shot out of the sky was not appealing.
But I did my job and led my crew.
The conflict that was real disheartening was Serbia.
BOTH sides were shooting at our airlift relief aircraft.
Again in Kosovo. If it was in the sky, both sides shot at it.
I got sent to Africa instead of Serbia. I don't know what was worse.
The people you're trying to help shooting at you or the children of the people you're trying to help shooting at you.
All men are created equal, but what they do after that point puts them on a sliding scale.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 09:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Powerbook View Post
Ja! Ja! Why not getting the knowledge of people who are the best in their respective field: I said it all the time - war is for the Germans. Just get some divisions of the famous Waffen-SS, I bet after doing the job they would have no problems scratching the remains of whatever insurgency of their boots.
Germans are the best at war?

So why do they keep losing them then?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Sherman Homan
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 09:16 AM
 
spindler,
Liberals have been against this from day one. The troops would have been home a long time ago if liberals had their way.
Check out this parade of liberals against the war:
http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv
     
spindler  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Beverly Hills
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 11:00 AM
 
What a bunch of lame relativism. There are 150,000 troops there. there could be 2,000,000 more. You claim to be pro-victory, but you've all got your excuses. Kevin "just doesn't agree" with the solution. People are talking about Bill clinton and politics from 1997 and 2003. It's all a lame excuse for sending others off to die. There is an obvious way to win the war and you have NO interest so you are simply interested in OTHER fighting.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 11:07 AM
 
Here's my strategy for Iraq: To win.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 11:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by spindler View Post
I would like every pro-surge and every pro-"we'll be there until the mission is done" to state as the first sentence in your first paragraph whether you are for a draft right now or not and why.

Note to liberals who are slow on the uptake. I am a liberal and I am for leaving Iraq. The point of this thread is to find out whether conservatives are just chickenhawks that send others off to war.
This is a classic "loaded question." There's no logical reason why someone who is "pro-surge" must also be "pro-draft."

I'm against a draft because it's a violation of basic human rights. Conscription is slavery. I can have an intelligent debate about whether a surge will improve the situation in Iraq (I doubt it), but debating conscription is like debating rape: if you don't understand why conscription is immoral, I see no point talking to you.

Expressions like "chickenhawk" cheapen political discussion. If you think mudslinging is enlightening, by all means: carry on.
     
Sky Captain
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on till morning
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 12:06 PM
 
The problem is getting the Iraqi people to give a rats ass about taking control of their country.
10,000,000 Iraqis could bring the terrorism to a halt. If they gave a ****.
The population has no desire to do anyhting other than kill each other.
All over religious bullshit. A fairytale.
All men are created equal, but what they do after that point puts them on a sliding scale.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 01:32 PM
 
there are wannabe army men in here
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 01:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Sky Captain View Post
The problem is getting the Iraqi people to give a rats ass about taking control of their country.
10,000,000 Iraqis could bring the terrorism to a halt. If they gave a ****.
The population has no desire to do anyhting other than kill each other.
All over religious bullshit. A fairytale.
..From the guy who doesn't know vegan from vegetarian.

Originally Posted by Kevin
This whole anti-going into Iraq thing was a PURE POLITICAL SHILL. The Dems wanted the presidential seat back.
LOL. They had exactly the correct position, as did Clinton. And you accuse them of being political shills. Whereas Bush had exactly the wrong position -- provably -- and you support him 100%. Well, as long as he gives you your tax cuts and you don't have to give the troops the resources they need.

Are you really this blindly partisan? Whenever the other side has the right position, you just say that it is PURE POLITICAL SHILL?
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 02:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
I'm also puzzled as to why as a "Liberal" you aren't already familiar with cowardice.
Who the **** are you to call him a coward?

Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Perhaps we wouldn't be there at all if SADDAM had followed the cease fire agreements with the UN in 1991. These events DO HAVE A HISTORY!
Or if GW1 killed him during Desert Storm.
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 02:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Sky Captain View Post
The problem is getting the Iraqi people to give a rats ass about taking control of their country.
10,000,000 Iraqis could bring the terrorism to a halt. If they gave a ****.
The population has no desire to do anyhting other than kill each other.
All over religious bullshit. A fairytale.
QFT.
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
spindler  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Beverly Hills
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 03:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Sky Captain View Post
The problem is getting the Iraqi people to give a rats ass about taking control of their country.
10,000,000 Iraqis could bring the terrorism to a halt. If they gave a ****.
The population has no desire to do anyhting other than kill each other.
All over religious bullshit. A fairytale.
See now here is a perfectly good excuse for not fighting yourself and my acceptance of it shows I am not ideological in one way or the other. I can accept that somewhere along the line people ifgured out that these people are too crazy to get under control and it is time to go home. I can accept sending the troops before but changing your mind at this point.

These other guys have less of a plan to win then even a liberal like me has. They somehow can't contemplate the idea of winning by using 2,000,000 draftees. These real conservative winners are happy to let the troops fight and check back every five years or so to say that "the last four years was mismanaged."
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 03:50 PM
 
spindler, why did you enlist in the military?
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 04:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by spindler View Post
These other guys have less of a plan to win then even a liberal like me has. They somehow can't contemplate the idea of winning by using 2,000,000 draftees.
You don't need 2,000,000 draftees. I could do it with the troops already there.
Just tell me when you're going to deposit my check and who my immediate subordinates are and I'll have it sorted within six months for you.

Oh. Might wanna extract those embedded CNN reporters before I start, too.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Sky Captain
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on till morning
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 05:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Oh. Might wanna extract those embedded CNN reporters before I start, too.
No ****.
Take no prisoners.
Publicly hang foreign fighters.

Saddam actually knew what he was doing.(I've said this before)
All men are created equal, but what they do after that point puts them on a sliding scale.
     
spindler  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Beverly Hills
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 08:58 PM
 
Railroader, I am not in the military, someone just assumed that above. I have arthritis and couldn't really run alot but I would be happy to join 1,000,000 Americans in attempting to give Iraqis a real shot at democracy.

So far the score is four conservatives, none interested in a draft, and of course all those who saw the thread and hid from it.

Doofy and Sky Captain talking about killing innocent people or torturing innocent people to win this by any means possible. I doubt that would be a solid way to start a democracy though I won't argue that the threat of torture might dissuade terrorist whereas the fear of dying doesn't.

However, that's just a slick excuse. It is not politically feasible. I am offering you a real solution for "victory". You both don't seem interested so you block it with some hypothetical that isn't going to happen.

Anyone who was in the military has earned the right to make the wrong decisions, For the rest of you I am waiting to find out why you toss away this solution I am offering when you were calling me a traitor not long ago for being a "defeatist".

I doubt even one conservative will be interested in the draft.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 09:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by spindler View Post
Railroader, I am not in the military, someone just assumed that above.
I think it was assumed when you said this:

Originally Posted by spindler
I am for leaving Iraq.
Why are you going to Iraq then?
     
spindler  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Beverly Hills
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 09:19 PM
 
I meant "for the troops leaving Iraq".
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 09:20 PM
 
Dearest spindler;

I'm assuming you want fires faught, crime faught, people saved in hospitals, and you probably want any one of the various services provided by those valuable people the military is commissioned to serve, you know, the American citizenry. Why don't you pick up a hammer and start building houses too. Of course, I'm assuming people are going to need their phones to work when they pick them up and we're still going to need teachers, laborers, etc... This also does not take into account the people that are physically unable to fight yet support the surge. Too often the people who use this argument are either unable to serve and wouldn't be drafted if there was one, or never once in their lives even considered serving. Think about that for a minute. By your logic it indeed works both ways.

What, you don't want to be a police officer? A carpenter? A doctor? A fireman? Well then, you may kindly never say anything at all regarding how these services are conducted or express support for any one of the above.

You're calling for someone to argue against your archaic notion and lpk put this as succinctly as you're going to see it here. He quietly and politely addressed you and your lack of response to him is telling. The actual issue is worthy of discussion, but having been built on the foundation you've provided, cannot be productive. Before you chest-pound the lack of response; understand that your question is entirely loaded, your logic woefully flawed, and you've not established why your embittered rant is worthy of anything more than ridicule at this point.
( Last edited by ebuddy; Aug 16, 2007 at 09:27 PM. )
ebuddy
     
Sherman Homan
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 09:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by spindler
I am for leaving Iraq.
Originally Posted by spindler
I am not in the military, someone just assumed that above.
Why are you leaving for Iraq? When are you leaving for Iraq? I am sure you can't describe the job, but can you at least tell us your thoughts about serving a government whose decisions you have so many questions about.
     
Mister Elf
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 09:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Sherman Homan View Post
Why are you leaving for Iraq? When are you leaving for Iraq? I am sure you can't describe the job, but can you at least tell us your thoughts about serving a government whose decisions you have so many questions about.
He's not going to Iraq! He said so twice in the quotes you included...
Midshipman 3/C, USNR
     
JonFraudCarry
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 10:15 PM
 
He's not going to Iraq! He said so twice in the quotes you included...
He did? MayBee me englais is knot sew good...
Originally Posted by spindler
I am for leaving Iraq.
Seemz cleer 2 mee.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 10:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You're calling for someone to argue against your archaic notion and lpk put this as succinctly as you're going to see it here. He quietly and politely addressed you and your lack of response to him is telling. The actual issue is worthy of discussion, but having been built on the foundation you've provided, cannot be productive. Before you chest-pound the lack of response; understand that your question is entirely loaded, your logic woefully flawed, and you've not established why your embittered rant is worthy of anything more than ridicule at this point.
The basic issue is, if you support the war in words then you should really support it. A necessary condition is certainly devoting enough resources to win the war. Most of the chest-beating in this thread is from Doofy, who isn't even an American.

I think the real problem is that the war's supporters did so not unconditionally. They all believed Rumsfeld when he said the war would cost $50 billion, and that the reconstruction would pay for itself. That's the kind of commitment they were willing to make. Now we are still there, basically devoting the minimum amount of resources we can to it, because they can't stomach the political costs of admitting their mistakes.

(Bush's policy for war planning was the same as yours on climate research; if you don't agree with the conclusions, shut it down! )
( Last edited by tie; Aug 16, 2007 at 10:33 PM. )
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
spindler  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Beverly Hills
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 10:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Dearest spindler;

I'm assuming you want fires faught, crime faught, people saved in hospitals, and you probably want any one of the various services provided by those valuable people the military is commissioned to serve, you know, the American citizenry. Why don't you pick up a hammer and start building houses too.

.
This is absurd. There is no analogy between a carpenter and what a soldier does. I just buy services from a carpenter or doctor. With a soldier, my choices affect someone's life and death, health and sanity.

I DO agree that outsiders get to make decisions about how to use the military. That is not in question. However, there are some obvious REQUIREMENTS in the thought process of sending off a soldier to fight and die. If I want to pay a baker to stand around all day and look good then that is fine. Sending a soldier to dodge bullets is different.

Explain to me which of these requirements of sending a soldier off to fight you disagree with please. You claim to be some reasonable thoughtful person. If you are unwilling to discuss the thought process you use before sending someone off to fight, if you simply play games and avoid this, then I will have to conclude that you are just a nasty thug. Anyone who calls themselves a human being would take pride in avoiding bloodshed so you should be willing to answer these questions.

(1) Is it true or false that sending someone off to war is a horrible event one would want to avoid unless there is no other reasonable choice?
(2) Is it true or false that to send soldiers off to die in a war the reason must be enormous? And that the only things large enough for soldiers to die for is to protect other Americans from dying or being brutalized or having their property stolen?
(3) Is it true or false that if the cause is enormous enough to send 100,000 soldiers off to fight, then it must be of such moral imperativeness that any proud American should be willing to fight for that cause?
(4) Is it true or false that it is cowardly to send 100,000 soldiers off to fight when you know it will take 500,000 to win? And to simply choose not to mention that 400,000 more are needed? And to sit back and just hope the 100,000 win when you know that with more help the war would by quicker, shorter, less deadly, and far more likely to be won?
(5) Is it not virtually obvious that 150,000 troops is not the comfortable number for this mission, that it is more like at least 500,00?

So you see I did not say "eBuddy does not have any choice in how and when to use the military." What I said was "It should be obvious that when you have determined that 150,000 troops should fight and die for a cause, you then must be willing to contribute to that cause yourself when necessary. You have committed to that cause and you are not an outside spectator."

Now I am asking for the most basic humanity from you in your explanation. The most basic humanity says that sending troops off to fight is a last resort only when the cost of not doing so is extremely high. The most basic common sense says that 20x as many soldiers means a linearly higher chance of winning, a shorter war, less death on one side and maybe both.

Now if you consider yourself anything other than a thug like Saddam Hussein who sends soldiers off to die, I don't think it is too much to explain why you were for a small force of Americans dying for a cause, but not interested in a force 20 times larger and more powerful fighting for that cause. That goes against basic logic. There can be virtually no explanation for that.
( Last edited by spindler; Aug 16, 2007 at 10:46 PM. )
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 11:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
A necessary condition is certainly devoting enough resources to win the war.
An even more necessary condition is being able to use those resources correctly.

Originally Posted by tie View Post
Most of the chest-beating in this thread is from Doofy, who isn't even an American.
Oh, it ain't chest-beating. I'm just telling it like it is.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2007, 11:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by spindler View Post
Doofy and Sky Captain talking about killing innocent people or torturing innocent people to win this by any means possible.
If you can find a quote anywhere in this thread which is going on about killing innocent people, quote it.

Nope, you can't. Because there isn't.

Like most stupid lefties you bring your own pre-conceived illusions to the table. Nothing new there.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:11 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,