George W Bush Is A War Criminal

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

Boston, thank you for taking the time to respond and explaining your reluctance for getting involved on the fight against terrorism. Other than on your keyboard. You see folks, there is always a way to rationalize getting out of hard work and letting others do it for you.

Boston, you see many of your cohorts label the “liberals” or “democrats” elitist. To me you seem to be the elitist with your smug attitude and “I can reference any web document answers”. You say the surveys and votes back you up, and you’re right they do. But unlike you, I was eighteen yrs old and in the military and I know what it is like to think your Senior Chief or Company Commander is god.

Young recruits have the run with the pack mentality and thats good. You need it if you’re going to ask people to kill and die for you. It’s not until years later that many will reflect on horrible things they had to do to survive and question orders they were given. From boot camp on, they are filled with “KILL, KILL, KILL,” and will die for each other. With that kind of influence and control, the powers that be, have a monumental responsibility to hold that power with the greatest care!

As far as you being thirty years old, you seem pretty young to me considering they are trying to bring back senior citizens into active duty who fullfilled their obligation years ago! So, yes you are young indeed! And, as far as my prior military service goes had I never served at all in my youth and a conflict came along that I thought was crucial to my countries future my thirty year old ass would be getting involved!

So, this Friday while you are drinking Martinis with your high powered friends for happy hour or taking your girlfriend to some trendy upscale restaurant, think about the forty yr old GI getting his legs blown off or the Iraqi infant ripped in half from friendly fire.

You snidley call me the desert fox… Better than being a chickenshit!

82

Elk:

All you ever do is try to degrade the person rather than tackle the issues. This is called “ad hominem.” It’s a classic logical fallacy to which people retreat when they can’t argue their positions effectively. Thank you for providing such a stellar example, with all the intellectual heft of “you’re a doo doo head.” Perhaps they can endow a chair for rhetoric for you at West Point. The least I can do is make a donation in your honor this weekend to charity:

The one above is good, and if you follow the link below there are many good ones if you wish to make one for yourself:

http://www.militarycharitycars.com/relatedlinks.html

I would attempt to continue the conversation, but unfortunately it’s been a one-sided effort. I’ve explained before the fallacy of your whole premise, that somehow only soldiers can have opinions on things military, but you never address anything or pay any attention – just reply with more eloquent prose such as “chickenshit.” BTW, I’m sorry you don’t appear to appreciate my referencing of facts. Sorry, but not surprised. So continue with your usual stream of insults, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

At any rate, thanks again for your service to your country.

83

I’m not one to generally jump into a fight, especially on the side of the guy who’s got the upper hand, but Elk, I want to ask you a couple of things…

Do you yell at the T.V. during a football game? If so, why? I mean, you were never an NFL star.

Have you ever commented on something that has happened on T.V.? Why? You were never a producer, actor, or on a reality show.

Have you ever seen a bad comic? Did you just leave it at that. I mean, you’ve never been a comic.

And how can you criticize the President? I don’t remember you even having served as the President.

When you comment that only the military is equipped to comment on military issues, it is just a matter of how far out you want to extend the scope. I mean, we could contract it furhter down and say that only 4 and 5 star generals should be able to criticize the handling of the war. Then again, we could move further out and say that anyone who is an American citizen is equipped to talk about the war. There is no reason why we should choose one line over another, other than your normative values.

What you are talking about is not whether a opinion is valid or not. You are concerned about the weight we should give that opinion. I would respect the opinion of a general more than I would someone who just enlisted. Then again, I’d trust a Senator who sat on the Armed Service Committee more than someone who’s served in the military for a number of years.

To simply say that only those who were in the military can comment on this issue is no more valid than saying that only lawyers can comment on the issue. In fact, on a thread discussing whether someone is a war criminal or not, I’d trust the wisdom of a lawyer than your typical serviceman any day.

84

Oh, whats the matter Boston? You defend simplistic “Bring it on!” jargon when it comes to the President. Isn’t that what you like about Bush the lack of namby pamby, elitist, hogwash talk, a real straight shooter who doesn’t have to research anything, but shoots from the hip like a real man?

Whatever dude, dilude yourself with what you must to cope with your lack of action and enjoy happy hour!

85

Not to mention that every time I go to work, I help PAY for that military. Of couse I am entitled to an opinion regarding what it does.

Further, does it not go both ways? To wit, I have not seen Elk criticize anyone who is OPPOSED to the war. That too is an opinion, is it not? How can someone who has not seen combat know enough to express a reasoned opposition?

86

Corey-

I’m not trying a case, I’m expressing my opinion. If you feel more more confident agreeing with a lawyer be my guest. By the way were your thoughts regarding lawyers so positive when Kerry and Edwards were in the news.

And as far as comparing a football game or T.V. show to my feelings on this war, no T.V. shows don’t get me riled up. A war that was based on lies in which there is untold suffering by both sides pisses me off to a great extent!

87

I think Elk is pointing out the hypocracy of referring to liberals as elitist when the same reliance on wordy bullshit is being used to justify a conservative stance (and non-participation).

It is elitism to claim “others” should go because they can “contribute” more. Your life (possibly your death) is what you can contribute, and your civilian life is not worth more because of what you do or what your education is – even if you might earn more or be well off compared to another.

Unless I’m getting it wrong, Elk is just pointing out that you don’t “believe” in the war, you simply support that others should go fight and die for you in this “important” cause.

No fancy education, profession or explanation changes that. Saying so is not an attack, it is just a fact. If it eases your conscience to give to military charities, then please do, but don’t think it is a legitimate contribution to the war effort. Certainly don’t offer it as a measure of your support or conviction.

Leaving out a particular target for the expression of this viewpoint might make it more palatable – or it might not.

Regardless, I suspect everyone gets the right to an opinion, though some folks will have a more informed opinion than others.

88

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Corey-

I’m not trying a case, I’m expressing my opinion. If you feel more more confident agreeing with a lawyer be my guest. By the way were your thoughts regarding lawyers so positive when Kerry and Edwards were in the news.

And as far as comparing a football game or T.V. show to my feelings on this war, no T.V. shows don’t get me riled up. A war that was based on lies in which there is untold suffering by both sides pisses me off to a great extent![/quote]

You missed the point. People who say that only this person or that person can give an opinion are wrong. Sure, maybe you should accord more or less weight to on issue or another, but that doesn’t mean that just because you didn’t do X or Y you can’t give an equally valid opinion.

As for Kerry and Edwards, yeah, they are in a better position to comment about how to try a case (especially Edwards) or certain provisions on the law. I lost respect for Kerry before I was born. Any man who stands up and calls all American military personnel “war criminals” on national T.V. (Dick Cabbot show, testimony to Congress), a charge that was blatantly false and led to untold suffering by the men who fought to protect the freedoms I enjoy today, I don’t think should be put in command of that same military today. I’m not a huge fan of Bush, but I trust him over Kerry. It is also why the Dems made a big mistake not putting up someone like Wes Clark, but that’s a whole other discussion thread.

89

Elk,

Shameful.

Vroom,

“It is elitism to claim “others” should go because they can “contribute” more.”

Patently false. Vroom have you signed up to help out in Afghanistan? Your other post regarding the award given to the Canadian unit must have inspired you to enlist, no? After all, you support them - why are you sending that unit that won the US award over to Afghanistan all by themselves when you could be contributing?

Further, the entire point of a volunteer army is that those who fight the wars are trained professionals. If I need legal advice, I retain Boston, not you. If I need to prosecute a war, I retain the professionals of the US armed forces, not Boston, certainly not you.

There is nothing ‘elitist’ about presenting a thorough, thoughtful argument and backing it with substantiation. Your claim of ‘wordy bullshit’ belies your precious new love of ‘flexible minded nuance and open mindedness’ - Boston is as clear as bottled water. He doesn’t need me to defend him, but this silly charge you share with Elk that Boston is an elitist because he happens to be well-read and well-communicated is idiocy.

The whiney claim that we send folks off to fight wars we’re too chicken to fight ourselves is defeated by the entire purpose of having a professional army - and it’s false. It’s their job. Never forget an ‘important contribution to the war effort’ are the taxes we all pay every year.

90

Corey,

Whether or not I ever served in this case to me is irrelevant. If I was very gung ho about a military cause and more so thought the battle of good and evil was taking place, I as an able bodied man I would take part in the battle. I would feel hypocritical if I was spouting off about military strategy or combat and then meeting other suits to plan our company vacation to the Bahamas!

If you don’t get my point you never will.

Vroom, thanks for your insight!

91

Thunder,

First, I should be cautious not to get Elk mired up in my own interpretation of what he did or didn’t say. Apologies Elk, if I managed to do that.

–

Anyway, I don’t think I’ve tried to give half arsed explanations of why I “should not” bother to join the military and become a professional soldier. After all, that is what you become after training.

Perhaps I’ll be a little more honest if I go for an explanation. Maybe I simply don’t want to join, I have other priorities perhaps.

However, I’m not going to sit here and claim I’m contributing to the effort because I’m paying tax. That is some lame-ass bullshit. I’m paying tax because I have to, not because I am choosing to support the military.

I joined army cadets as a youngster and later spent years working on the local army base as a civilian contractor. I know I’m not well cut out for a peacetime army. I don’t take well to endless drill and I really don’t go much for adopting any type of collective mindset.

In a crisis situation where the peacetime drill becomes unimportant, I would be much more likely to join – and conversely much more likely to be accepted – and be deployed. I don’t see Canada facing such a threat or a superpower imposing such a threat on the world any time soon, but it could happen.

When something comes along that I believe in thoroughly, if appropriate given my age, you might see me take a stand. For example, if Canada were under invasion or occupation.

92

Given that Elk endorsed this, I’ll just try responding here, as it’s much easier to respond to well organized posts.

[quote]vroom wrote:
I think Elk is pointing out the hypocracy of referring to liberals as elitist when the same reliance on wordy bullshit is being used to justify a conservative stance (and non-participation). [/quote]

If that’s so, it’s a bad claim, given the lack of similarity to the compared items. More later.

If this is Elk’s claim – and I think it is – it’s a problem, because that critique isn’t a critique of my position. I’ve never claimed others could contribute more. It’s a matter of how to maximize one’s contribution. Economics would dictate it’s by contributing in the way one can contribute best, whether that be as a person who enlists for the infantry or whether that be as someone who runs an export company and helps keep the dollar from devaluating further. Another analysis might be that one maximizes one’s contribution by contributing where one is most needed – hard to quantify, but in this case it would seem a reasonable metric would be to contribute where you are asked, and where the leadership indicates help is most needed.

I think that here, the leadership has indicated that they want people to go on creating jobs and maximizing economic output at home. There has been no call for a draft, and no indication that the generals and leaders want all able-bodied people to enlist. Only Elk seems to have that idea, and only if one happens to disagree with him at any rate.

No, I think you’ve gotten it pretty well right as to his position. If Elk wishes to redefine “believe in the war” to make it mean “make it the utmost priority and contribute in the way Elk thinks most fitting”, then I think it would sum it up precisely.

No – saying so is an opinion. And to paraphrase what you say below, everyone can have one, regardless of how informed it is.

Having a job that produces economic outputs and tax revenues is a legitimate contribution to the war effort – without people thus employed, we could not have a war effort. This focus is incredibly short-sighted in its myopia concerning the importance of economic output to any war effort. You can’t win a war if you’re going bankrupt at home.

Basically, if the leadership thought they needed more bodies more than they needed economic output, you’d see that message come out in recruiting, and there would be consideration of reviving a draft.

Nothing should diminish the respect we have for the choice made by those who choose to enlist and serve in the armed forces – they put their lives on the line for America and for each other. But at the same time, we should acknowledge that there needs to be effort at home to support them, directly and indirectly, as well.

[quote] Leaving out a particular target for the expression of this viewpoint might make it more palatable – or it might not.

Regardless, I suspect everyone gets the right to an opinion, though some folks will have a more informed opinion than others.[/quote]

I have my own personal reasons for not enlisting, which I don’t feel the need to discuss. I prefer to discuss things in terms of general principles.

93

elk,

You wrote: “Better than being a chickenshit!”

Let’s be crystal clear here. Are you saying that all non-combat people are cowards?

Let’s have it in clear and concise English.

JeffR

94

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Oh, whats the matter Boston? You defend simplistic “Bring it on!” jargon when it comes to the President. Isn’t that what you like about Bush the lack of namby pamby, elitist, hogwash talk, a real straight shooter who doesn’t have to research anything, but shoots from the hip like a real man?

Whatever dude, dilude yourself with what you must to cope with your lack of action and enjoy happy hour![/quote]

Elk –

If you had a point, it would merit refutation. Oh well.

95

Boston,

If you had just come out and said this, instead of trying to explain that living in and enjoying the rights and privileges of citizenship of the US is your contribution – what a crock of shit that is – I’d have had a lot less to talk about.

I believe there are people that can do more “over here” than over there, but I also believe they are few and far between also.

Moreover, I don’t believe it is economize might and taxation levels that create this situation, it is the ability to provide something concrete for the war effort such that the war effort would suffer without that effort. Otherwise, it smacks of the rich needing deferments while the poor go off to die. Oh wait, this is generally how it works, my mistake.

In reality, rich or not, you are replaceable by any other wheel in the economic machine. Yes, there are some rare exceptions – don’t pull an exception out of your ass and try to claim my whole theory is bullshit.

And yes, it is a fact, you were talking about the idea that those with an education or able to earn an income (perhaps by directing a company) being better contributors by sitting on their asses and helping turn the economic machine. Good luck with that argument.

You and I are both in the same boat in this respect, there is no shortage of lawyers and there is no shortage of IT professionals – though there is a shortage of soldiers. We might both be worthless soldiers, but if we died over there the economic world wouldn’t skip a beat as we are infinitely replaceable.

96

[quote]vroom wrote:
Boston,

I have my own personal reasons for not enlisting, which I don’t feel the need to discuss. I prefer to discuss things in terms of general principles.

If you had just come out and said this, instead of trying to explain that living in and enjoying the rights and privileges of citizenship of the US is your contribution – what a crock of shit that is – I’d have had a lot less to talk about.

I believe there are people that can do more “over here” than over there, but I also believe they are few and far between also.

Moreover, I don’t believe it is economize might and taxation levels that create this situation, it is the ability to provide something concrete for the war effort such that the war effort would suffer without that effort. Otherwise, it smacks of the rich needing deferments while the poor go off to die. Oh wait, this is generally how it works, my mistake.

In reality, rich or not, you are replaceable by any other wheel in the economic machine. Yes, there are some rare exceptions – don’t pull an exception out of your ass and try to claim my whole theory is bullshit.

And yes, it is a fact, you were talking about the idea that those with an education or able to earn an income (perhaps by directing a company) being better contributors by sitting on their asses and helping turn the economic machine. Good luck with that argument.

You and I are both in the same boat in this respect, there is no shortage of lawyers and there is no shortage of IT professionals – though there is a shortage of soldiers. We might both be worthless soldiers, but if we died over there the economic world wouldn’t skip a beat as we are infinitely replaceable.[/quote]

vroom:

You are missing the whole point, mostly because it’s not consistent with your assumption.

I didn’t say anyone in particular was irreplacable. I didn’t say “living in and enjoying the privileges of the U.S.” was the way to contribute either. I said specifically that each person should contribute in the area in which he could contribute the highest value. In other words, unless there is a particular reason, you don’t put a nuclear engineer to work in the kitchen, because that is a net loss in value to the overall effort.

I also said that value was dictated by the needs of the war effort. I’ll add specifically what I implied above, which is that our information as to what is most needed comes from the leadership in terms of what they ask of us.

With all that said, if they needed more people to volunteer for manpower reasons, they’d let us know via recruiting efforts – and then, if the situation were dire enough, through talk of a conscription. What they have said – what Bush and others said specifically in the wake of 9/11 and afterwards – is that we need to rebuild a strong economy.

While you and Elk may have decided that there is only one way to contribute to a victory, I’ll decline to agree. The best thing we can do is contribute where we can add the most value as individuals – and that value is measured by the specific needs, which we can only know via what is communicated to us.

BTW, as far as I can tell, there’s not a shortage of soldiers, although they do need more people in specific areas – particularly MPs and people to train Iraqis.

97

Oh, and I would be remiss if I didn’t note the truth of what Thunderbolt noted above, which is the reality of our professional armed service. We have an all-volunteer service of people who enlisted in the military either as a career path or for other reasons. These brave individuals have chosen to participate this way, and are not going “in anyone’s place.” That’s the fallacy of your whole position above – there are no deferments because there is no draft (because there is no massive shortage of manpower). To portray these people as cajoled, or forced to go in the place of someone else, cheapens their decisions. They are informed, brave, and we are proud of each of them.

98

No shortage of soldiers? How would you explain the “backdoor draft”?

You will not agree, but I think it is a bit of a cop out to say… the leaders suggest that we should focus on the economy.

Like I said, there are rare people who are truly needed in the economy, but not many. I am fully versed in the concept of comparative advantage in the economic sense – I doubt very many people at all (of fighting age) can offer more in the fight against terror by doing their job instead of joining the military.

It’s not that I don’t see your argument and point, but I don’t agree with it. The war is a much more focused and intense event, with the ability for one average person to have a measurable impact, whereas the economy simply isn’t.

In every day real on-the-job life it is very difficult to have an impact on something as large as the economy.

One bullet aimed at the right person at the right time however can have a huge, direct and immediate impact. Even something as simple as being alert or befriending an ally with access to information can be huge. Given your rations to local children may even tip the tide in terms of befriending the Iraqi people. The ability to have a real impact is at least there.

Even going back a layer, driving the truck that brings food to the front line soldiers will have much more impact than helping one business litigate another to death. However, perhaps you are helping the US with respect to interpretation of the constitution or something with expertise that cannot be replaced?

It is possible, but it is also rare.

99

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Whether or not I ever served in this case to me is irrelevant. [/quote]

Yet you use it as the barometer for judging others’ right to voice their opinion.

Did you have this same disdain for Clinton’s unilateral use of force?

You are the shit-headed kid, sitting in the corner with his fingers jammed in his ears, shouting nananananana I can’t hear you!

Pathetic.

Do you want debate, Elk? Or do you just want to accuse everyone with a different opinion of being less ‘american’ than you? Cause I haven’t seen shit from you as far as debate goes.

In fact, we could go back and look at the posts you made prior to your hiatus, and I would be willing to bet we would find the same childish blather.

But nice to see you around again, anyhow.

100

Why argue? You don’t even have to follow politics to determine how perfect Bush is. He represents all of us in the best way possible.

You just gotta listen to the guy speak… His flow is smoother than 50 Cent’s.