elk wrote:
"It always resorts to physical intimidation with you huh? Well, obviously what, I said hit in nerve with your poor self esteem. If you are indeed a cop are one of the “Walking Small” variety? I would say yes! Guys who join the force because they need the power and respect no one gave them before in their life.
The fact that you had to stew over this and like another person I know reference “friends or others” to show that you have support is a glaring indication of your weakness! “I showed others your pictures and told them you plotted targets,”. Really how weak, can you stand on your own two feet? Are as many of us have guessed from your juvenile posting, are you spoiled little baby?
I’m gonna hafta hear another "well the boys down at the precint agree with huge, strong,under fire everyday me, that your weak and joke. You are the definition of a fucking joke.
You care to come to Colorado ever I’ll meet you for a cup of joe."
You absolutely hit a nerve with me. I would wager that my response is not unique. If you insult someone’s bravery, manhood, and committment to public service, you’ll probably get the same response.
In fact, I’ll bet most people will get even more angry.
Being called insecure is a new one for me!!! I actually can’t remember the last time anyone said that to me.
I gather that you aren’t willing to follow through on my recommendations.
I’m not surprised.
Please let me know if you ever say any of these things to a member of the Force.
I would be very curious to hear of their response.
jeff, no one may ever say it to you, but your behavior and the way you express yourself scream it!
If I was to take your childish challenge and march down to the local police dept. and ask to speak to the biggest guy on the force and proceed to start with your idiotic inquiry, no they wouldn’t give me the patriotic beating you’re hoping for. They would haul my ass off to the psych ward!
I have stated numerous times my opinion on the war matter. You can disagree with my opinion that’s fine, but you feel it is your duty to shame me into thinking I’m wrong, so you start with your tactics and I respond with my own. I will keep it up as long as you do.
I pass my judgment on those that are waving the war flag high and mighty and could easily sign up for duty if they cared to! IMO that is the height of hypocrisy!
So how do you judge the able bodied anti-war people that sit on the sidelines and don’t write their congressman asking for an end to the war, organize anti-war protest, or in general take no action other than to complain. Is this not hypocrisy also?
Not nearly the same thing. I don’t see them as responsible for it or as hypocrites. The burden of responsibility doesn’t fall on them in my view it falls on you. [/quote]
And I accept that responsiblity fully. I have been over there 4 times since 2001 and I will be going back over within a month. Of course the anti-war people are not responsible for the war, but if they are that commited to their ideals and fail to follow through with action, why do you give them a free pass on their in-action while in the same breath slamming anyone pro-war for theirs?
I pass my judgment on those that are waving the war flag high and mighty and could easily sign up for duty if they cared to! IMO that is the height of hypocrisy!
So how do you judge the able bodied anti-war people that sit on the sidelines and don’t write their congressman asking for an end to the war, organize anti-war protest, or in general take no action other than to complain. Is this not hypocrisy also?
Not nearly the same thing. I don’t see them as responsible for it or as hypocrites. The burden of responsibility doesn’t fall on them in my view it falls on you.
And I accept that responsiblity fully. I have been over there 4 times since 2001 and I will be going back over within a month. Of course the anti-war people are not responsible for the war, but if they are that commited to their ideals and fail to follow through with action, why do you give them a free pass on their in-action while in the same breath slamming anyone pro-war for theirs? [/quote]
I commend you for taking that responsibility. If I was still serving as much as I disagree with this action, I would still fulfill my obligation. I would still express my disagreement with it when I felt the need to as well.
I happen to disagree with your assessment that every person who disagrees with war needs to be writing their congressman or forming anti-war committees. If they did this you still wouldn’t be satisfied and would label them hippies or subversives. You are just looking for a tit for a tat.
[quote]100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
lincono wrote:
It’s too bad FDR didn’t wait until 1945 to get involved in WWII; if he did, we could have fought the Germans and Japanese right here in America
Beautiful!!!
JeffR
Beautifully dumb! Our military spending exceeds what the next 5 countries combined? If we hadn’t gotten Iraq surely they would’ve gotten to us—with the unmanned drones that travel 6000 miles with biological weapons (another lie). He dared to make the comparison and Jeff was glad he did, hilarious.
[/quote]
I have to say, that was pretty stupid. Iraq was not about to invade the USA…not now, not later.
[quote]CDM wrote:
And I accept that responsiblity fully. I have been over there 4 times since 2001 and I will be going back over within a month. Of course the anti-war people are not responsible for the war, but if they are that commited to their ideals and fail to follow through with action, why do you give them a free pass on their in-action while in the same breath slamming anyone pro-war for theirs?
[/quote]
What is this “in-action” you speak of? As if people who beleive this war is unjust have to do something to show it is unjust. What do you suggest we do–Vote? That didn’t work too well for us if you remember the results from November.
I happen to disagree with your assessment that every person who disagrees with war needs to be writing their congressman or forming anti-war committees. If they did this you still wouldn’t be satisfied and would label them hippies or subversives. You are just looking for a tit for a tat.[/quote]
I don’t think every anti-war person needs to be doing these things but you were expecting the pro-war people to make a major commitment to their cause but not expecting the anti-war to do the same. And if they did do some protesting and the like, it would not bug me at all. It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve seen/heard it and I am sure it won’t be the last.
Last time I was in New Mexico, there were people protesting (Anti-nukes/Anti-Iraq) right outside the front gate, we actually went and got some lunch and sat out there and talked to them, nice people but we obviously had different views on defense. The base CC wasn’t too happy about it, he had the SP’s bring us inside the gates and “escort” us to his office, but he got over it. The point being don’t assume that just because I do support the war that I am automatically going to be hostile to anyone who doesn’t.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
lincono wrote:
It’s too bad FDR didn’t wait until 1945 to get involved in WWII; if he did, we could have fought the Germans and Japanese right here in America
Beautiful!!!
JeffR
Beautifully dumb! Our military spending exceeds what the next 5 countries combined? If we hadn’t gotten Iraq surely they would’ve gotten to us—with the unmanned drones that travel 6000 miles with biological weapons (another lie). He dared to make the comparison and Jeff was glad he did, hilarious.
I have to say, that was pretty stupid. Iraq was not about to invade the USA…not now, not later.[/quote]
Please read ‘The Art of War’ by Sun Tzu to understand about choosing the site of battle. If you don’t think the Iraqi government was involved with AlQuida, then you should also study Middle Eastern history as well. You are the same type of person who used this same type of rhetoric in the 20’s and 30’s that Hitler wasn’t going to attack Europe or America; he did attack Europe and he would have attacked America.
What is this “in-action” you speak of? As if people who beleive this war is unjust have to do something to show it is unjust. What do you suggest we do–Vote? That didn’t work too well for us if you remember the results from November.
[/quote]
That wasn’t what I was talking about, I think you kind of came into the middle of this conversation. But, I don’t think you have to do anything to believe the war is unjust, just like I don’t think you have to do anything to believe it is a just cause.
And yes, I do suggest you vote, just because the election didn’t turn out the way you wanted is no reason to quit voting. I personally feel the Democratic party is lost right now but I don’t think it will always be that way. They need someone to focus their vision and right now they don’t have it. But I have seen you post before about the need for universal health care, forget it. That is not something to get behind because the only way it will happen is with a large tax increase. And if the country did go for a tax increase God forbid anyone unleashes the pathetic health care system we in the military have called Tri-Care. It is a model of what not to do.
Please read ‘The Art of War’ by Sun Tzu to understand about choosing the site of battle. If you don’t think the Iraqi government was involved with AlQuida, then you should also study Middle Eastern history as well. You are the same type of person who used this same type of rhetoric in the 20’s and 30’s that Hitler wasn’t going to attack Europe or America; he did attack Europe and he would have attacked America.[/quote]
Now I know that you are ridiculous. Saddam couldn’t even put together a loyal military, let alone convince them all of a new world order like Hitler. You can’t possibly see things this way.
Please read ‘The Art of War’ by Sun Tzu to understand about choosing the site of battle. If you don’t think the Iraqi government was involved with AlQuida, then you should also study Middle Eastern history as well. You are the same type of person who used this same type of rhetoric in the 20’s and 30’s that Hitler wasn’t going to attack Europe or America; he did attack Europe and he would have attacked America.
Now I know that you are ridiculous. Saddam couldn’t even put together a loyal military, let alone convince them all of a new world order like Hitler. You can’t possibly see things this way.[/quote]
Just who do you think is behind the insurgency? The teachings of the Koran is their new world order. Please utilize my previous suggestions to educate yourself before you call someone ridiculous.
[quote]lincono wrote:
Professor X wrote:
lincono wrote:
Please read ‘The Art of War’ by Sun Tzu to understand about choosing the site of battle. If you don’t think the Iraqi government was involved with AlQuida, then you should also study Middle Eastern history as well. You are the same type of person who used this same type of rhetoric in the 20’s and 30’s that Hitler wasn’t going to attack Europe or America; he did attack Europe and he would have attacked America.
Now I know that you are ridiculous. Saddam couldn’t even put together a loyal military, let alone convince them all of a new world order like Hitler. You can’t possibly see things this way.
Just who do you think is behind the insurgency? The teachings of the Koran is their new world order. Please utilize my previous suggestions to educate yourself before you call someone ridiculous.[/quote]
And most of these insurgents are coming from OUTSIDE of Iraq. Again, Iraq wasn’t going to invade us. Quit the bullshit. The difference between individual terrorists and a united moveable front across the ocean is a chasm.
[quote]lincono wrote:
Professor X wrote:
lincono wrote:
Please read ‘The Art of War’ by Sun Tzu to understand about choosing the site of battle. If you don’t think the Iraqi government was involved with AlQuida, then you should also study Middle Eastern history as well. You are the same type of person who used this same type of rhetoric in the 20’s and 30’s that Hitler wasn’t going to attack Europe or America; he did attack Europe and he would have attacked America.
Now I know that you are ridiculous. Saddam couldn’t even put together a loyal military, let alone convince them all of a new world order like Hitler. You can’t possibly see things this way.
Just who do you think is behind the insurgency? The teachings of the Koran is their new world order. Please utilize my previous suggestions to educate yourself before you call someone ridiculous.[/quote]
Lincono is making excellent points. Saddam loyalists are a major part of the insurgency. Anyone that does not believe Saddam was a threat is smoking crack. He was the fucker that started this whole mess when he invaded Kuwait in 1991.
Anyone that believes we can ignore the problems in the middle east and they will go away is just kidding themselves. We had that policy for too long and it cost us dearly on 9/11/01.
Positive changes are being made in Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iraq as a result of this administrations policies. There have been set backs too. This is what happens in the real world.
This is going to be a long war to fix the middle east. The real world is not a movie that resolves itself in two hours.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Lincono is making excellent points. Saddam loyalists are a major part of the insurgency. Anyone that does not believe Saddam was a threat is smoking crack. He was the fucker that started this whole mess when he invaded Kuwait in 1991.
Anyone that believes we can ignore the problems in the middle east and they will go away is just kidding themselves. We had that policy for too long and it cost us dearly on 9/11/01.[/quote]
Wait a second, what does 9/11 have to do with Saddam?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Lincono is making excellent points. Saddam loyalists are a major part of the insurgency. Anyone that does not believe Saddam was a threat is smoking crack. He was the fucker that started this whole mess when he invaded Kuwait in 1991.
Anyone that believes we can ignore the problems in the middle east and they will go away is just kidding themselves. We had that policy for too long and it cost us dearly on 9/11/01.
Positive changes are being made in Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iraq as a result of this administrations policies. There have been set backs too. This is what happens in the real world.
This is going to be a long war to fix the middle east. The real world is not a movie that resolves itself in two hours.
[/quote]
The insurgents are there as a result of the US being in Iraq. I don’t remember ever hearing about cars exploding and killing Iraqi citizens before the invasion. Maybe I’m missing something.
I can’t believe you can say someone quoting from Sun Tzu holds any relevance. This book is as outdated as the Bible itself.
And seeing as how the Middle East has been through these struggles since before Alexander I don’t think America is going to be its “liberator”–not now, not with the current world attitude.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Lincono is making excellent points. Saddam loyalists are a major part of the insurgency. Anyone that does not believe Saddam was a threat is smoking crack. He was the fucker that started this whole mess when he invaded Kuwait in 1991.
Anyone that believes we can ignore the problems in the middle east and they will go away is just kidding themselves. We had that policy for too long and it cost us dearly on 9/11/01.
Wait a second, what does 9/11 have to do with Saddam?
[/quote]
You are right, we should limit ourselves to chasing Bin Laden up and down the mountains and ignore all of our other enemies.
And seeing as how the Middle East has been through these struggles since before Alexander I don’t think America is going to be its “liberator”–not now, not with the current world attitude.
[/quote]
Very true. Some of these battles have been raging since the time of Abraham. It is a little naive and cocky to assume America will suddenly solve what has been raging since nearly the beginning of recorded time.
“The insurgents are there as a result of the US being in Iraq. I don’t remember ever hearing about cars exploding and killing Iraqi citizens before the invasion. Maybe I’m missing something.”
That would be the regime killing Iraqis. I would be very interested to hear the numbers of Iraqi deaths in 2001 compared to 2005.
“I can’t believe you can say someone quoting from Sun Tzu holds any relevance. This book is as outdated as the Bible itself.”
The parts about how many fish to feed an ox definetly are. I agree with you.
However, quoting military leaders, the principles are timeless.
“And seeing as how the Middle East has been through these struggles since before Alexander I don’t think America is going to be its “liberator”–not now, not with the current world attitude.”