[quote]jeffdirect wrote:
Oh i forgot.
When it comes to pulling rank, Mikeyali can always be counted on.[/quote]
I’m just surprised that you would want the help of some evil Marines. Man, if those fascists are pulling for Paul something must be wrong eh? Shouldn’t you be spitting on guys like this? How do I keep getting suckered into replying to you? I feel like Ricky Bobby on Telladega Nights when his buddy stole his wife and house.
mike
[quote]jeffdirect wrote:
When it comes to pulling rank, Mikeyali can always be counted on.[/quote]
Why are all people named Jeff here total jerks?
[quote]lixy wrote:
jeffdirect wrote:
When it comes to pulling rank, Mikeyali can always be counted on.
Why are all people named Jeff here total jerks?[/quote]
I honored to be disliked by you. It pleases me.
However, jeffdirect, sounds like your kind of guy.
P.M. him. Maybe you can have a hate fest. You won’t have anyone like me smacking you around as you try to incite hatred and support violence.
Should be fun for you two.
Enjoy.
JeffR
[quote]storey420 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
storey, I have to admit to being disappointed.
It’s like telling a great joke only to get a blank stare.
I guarantee everyone else (but you) understood the references. The prediction and discussion was RIGHT ON.
Want some parallels?
Want examples of this phenomena? Try ross perot, che, ralph nader, elvis, and kirk cobain.
All fads. Same amount of slobbering, chest thumping, finger pointing, and noise.
All amounting to exactly nothing.
In the future, read my posts five or six times before throwing your hands up and admitting to being a simpleton.
Deal?
Great.
JeffR
Yeah Jeff I got the references, in fact I read Mick’s drivel earlier in the post that mirrors that. Unless you have something besides ad hominems and red herrings please don’t bother.
There are tons of reasons–personal character and more importantly voting/job performance history that makes Guiliani a completely unacceptable candidate for Pres. yet you still cling to him–amazing. Does Paul have stances that I disagree with? Absolutely.
Does he have the charisma of say Reagan? Not by a long shot. But unlike people like Mick who like to have the Presidential contest be more like American Idol(someone with pizzazz), I would prefer to look at someone’s voting/job performance record and make a decision for what someone has proven themselves to be.
Even the haters out there have trouble finding too many actual votes cast by Paul during his tenure that are not obviously sonpsored by special interests like the majority of the other candidates. Our currency is teetering and the status quo cannot sustain America for so much longer.
Either way if Paul goes down then I’ll have to start an “Anyone but Hillary” campaign.[/quote]
storey,
Has it crossed your mind that people aren’t responding to paul because he’s full of shit?
Seriously.
I’ve given many examples (failure of isolationism in America at all times, what if other countries threatened our trade) etc., that shows clearly that paul is WAY out of his element.
I receive no response.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Enjoy. [/quote]
Well played Jeffy.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
storey,
Has it crossed your mind that people aren’t responding to paul because he’s full of shit?
Seriously.
I’ve given many examples (failure of isolationism in America at all times, what if other countries threatened our trade) etc., that shows clearly that paul is WAY out of his element.
I receive no response.
JeffR
[/quote]
Of course it has to cross your mind when considering all options. Now what exactly makes him different from every other candidate in that regards?
Wait for it…
I know the others ARE full of shit! I’ve also considered that Dr Paul has been blighted by the media and not given equal coverage–have you?
I can see your issue with your first example but the second “what if other countries threatened our trade” seriously? Do I need to point out how stupid that is?
“I don’t want to be president for what I want to do, it’s for what I don’t want to do,” Paul said at a rally in the showroom at Walker Motor Sales Inc. “I don’t want to run the economy, I don’t want to police the world. I don’t want to tell people how to run their lives and spend their money…”
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
jeffdirect wrote:
Oh i forgot.
When it comes to pulling rank, Mikeyali can always be counted on.
I’m just surprised that you would want the help of some evil Marines. Man, if those fascists are pulling for Paul something must be wrong eh? Shouldn’t you be spitting on guys like this? How do I keep getting suckered into replying to you? I feel like Ricky Bobby on Telladega Nights when his buddy stole his wife and house.
mike[/quote]
Support the troops.
Get them out of Iraq.
( And don’t let them watch gay flicks)
[quote]jeffdirect wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
jeffdirect wrote:
Oh i forgot.
When it comes to pulling rank, Mikeyali can always be counted on.
I’m just surprised that you would want the help of some evil Marines. Man, if those fascists are pulling for Paul something must be wrong eh? Shouldn’t you be spitting on guys like this? How do I keep getting suckered into replying to you? I feel like Ricky Bobby on Telladega Nights when his buddy stole his wife and house.
mike
Support the troops.
Get them out of Iraq.
( And don’t let them watch gay flicks)
[/quote]
So if a troop doesn’t want out of Iraq are you still supporting him if you’re trying to bring him home?
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
So if a troop doesn’t want out of Iraq are you still supporting him if you’re trying to bring him home? [/quote]
Good question. The answer would be a resounding NO!
However, there is more to the topic than just that. For starters, it’s ludicrous to claim most troops would rather stay in Iraq (with the extended tours of duty, IEDs around the place, etc…) than go home. Every single that was was taken, shows a majority of the armed forces personnel disillusioned.
Don’t forget that a great deal of Iraqis support attacks on American troops.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm
Plus, if a handful want to play cowboy in Iraq, let them do it on their own dime. Why should the American taxpayer chip in to fulfill their fantasies?
Don’t take it personally Mikey. I know your intentions are noble, but your position is logically untenable and you know it. That’s why Bush&co resort to sentiments and such (patriotism, democracy, etc…)
[/quote]
I’m not offended in the least. The wife and I battle over this consistently. I still struggle as to where I stand. I don’t think that we should be forcibly extracting tax dollars from citizens to be in Iraq. But then again, I don’t the assholes in my city have the right to forcibly take my money to go to the public schools. Yet for some reason they think that if they all vote on it then it becomes okay. I repeat John Adams, “Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner.” The idea that I get suckered in by the idea of democracy is laughable. As I grow older I find myself to be no friend of democracy except in its most restrained state.
But since we’re stuck in this democracy as it currently stands and they aren’t going to give me my money back, I’d rather it went to kicking ass overseas and advancing basic human rights worldwide than to more social programs that belittle us as a species.
But even so, we’re stuck with tons of questions and there are no easy answers. Let’s say that we make it so that every dumbass jarhead like myself that wants to play John Paul Jones can grab his M14 and a few friends and go overseas to try and kick some ass. Could it not then be said that the U.S. allows terrorists to train freely in their territory when one of these cowboys decides to go section 8 in Iraq or Syria or the Phillipines? I’m playing with a few ideas in my head as how to properly do this but I’m still a long way from a real workable solution.
All this said, I’m still calling bullshit on the troops wanting this to be over with. You can show me a million polls and I’m not going to buy it. My whole former unit is over there and damn near every one is excited and happy to be there. I have a ton of Iraq vet friends and most of them are still pretty gung ho. Motivation wavers; hell, I’ve had plenty of down moments during deployments, but morale generally stays pretty high.
Then again, me and mine were not support troops. Your attitude about the war may be different when you you’re sitting on your ass playing Xbox in Iraq instead of getting outside the wire. And with something like 9 support troops to every 1 combat troop, my experience MIGHT be in the minority.
Now I need to shut up, pound another Red Bull and get back to this damned research paper. It’s 3:30 in the morning dammit.
mike
[quote]lixy wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
So if a troop doesn’t want out of Iraq are you still supporting him if you’re trying to bring him home?
Good question. The answer would be a resounding NO!
However, there is more to the topic than just that. For starters, it’s ludicrous to claim most troops would rather stay in Iraq (with the extended tours of duty, IEDs around the place, etc…) than go home. Every single that was was taken, shows a majority of the armed forces personnel disillusioned.
Don’t forget that a great deal of Iraqis support attacks on American troops.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm
Plus, if a handful want to play cowboy in Iraq, let them do it on their own dime. Why should the American taxpayer chip in to fulfill their fantasies?
Don’t take it personally Mikey. I know your intentions are noble, but your position is logically untenable and you know it. That’s why Bush&co resort to sentiments and such (patriotism, democracy, etc…)[/quote]
Sorry lixy. We have defeated your AQ friends. Our troops will not leave until the job is done.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
But since we’re stuck in this democracy as it currently stands and they aren’t going to give me my money back, I’d rather it went to kicking ass overseas and advancing basic human rights worldwide than to more social programs that belittle us as a species. [/quote]
Huh?
I must have missed the chapter where Rousseau proclaims “kicking ass overseas” as a basic human right. Seriously, your statement is extremely disturbing and I fail to see how anybody with a shred of common sense can think that way. Oh well, live and learn I guess…
Leaving aside the fact that you folks would often get your ass kicked in such a configuration, I don’t think it makes a difference to the rest of the world. The US army is already considered a terrorist force by many people (including within the US itself).
[quote]All this said, I’m still calling bullshit on the troops wanting this to be over with. You can show me a million polls and I’m not going to buy it. My whole former unit is over there and damn near every one is excited and happy to be there. I have a ton of Iraq vet friends and most of them are still pretty gung ho. Motivation wavers; hell, I’ve had plenty of down moments during deployments, but morale generally stays pretty high.
Then again, me and mine were not support troops. Your attitude about the war may be different when you you’re sitting on your ass playing Xbox in Iraq instead of getting outside the wire. And with something like 9 support troops to every 1 combat troop, my experience MIGHT be in the minority. [/quote]
Scratches head
You do realize that you slammed your argument in the 2nd paragraph, don’t you? If you are ambivalent, wouldn’t it be wise to resort to polls to settle this issue? If not, why?
Many of the troops deployed miss their kids. The chances of them losing a leg or coming home in a box are not at all negligible. You can claim to be a superbreed or have the best training and equipment in the world (I’ll agree with you on the latter), but that doesn’t change basic human psychology.
Good luck. As a side note, Spike is da bomb.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
I’d rather it went to kicking ass overseas and advancing basic human rights worldwide than to more social programs that belittle us as a species.[/quote]
Says the brave warrior who gets to war peasants, farmers and shopkeepers out to protect their families from murderous night raids and checkpoints.
Give them the same firepower you marines have; you then might just find out the true meaning of patriotism; i guarantee this occuppation will end in three days and you probably would be the first to shit your pants,curse the day you joined and wonder who ever persuaded you to spread democracy and freedom in a souvereign country wanting you the hell out.
Bin Laden was funded by the CIA.
The same CIA who murdered the democraticly elected Alliende in Chili, and installed in his place the murderous military regime of Pinochet.
The same CIA who installed the Shah of Iran in order to protect the OIL interests of the USA and England.
The same CIA who went out of it’s way to ignore hundreds of warnings from all over the world regarding the World Trade Center.
Wonderful.
But there’s one small detail that you might want to consider while you’re so gung ho: 500.000 first Gulf War veterans and counting out of 750.000 have applied for full disability benefits to the military administration .
This is from a hundred hours war.
Only half have been accepted, and while tens of thousands are dying each year the administration hold out and misplaces their medical records as to not get bankrupt.
Major Doug Rokke, appointed by Norman Schwarzkopf to decontaminate the war zone,will be delighted to tell you the story ( warning: you might be feel unwell after watching his expose)
Seems the saying " Immoral behaviour breeds immoral behaviour" has been intentionnally devised by fate to cater for people of your kind.
There’s justice, after all.
[/quote]
[quote]jeffdirect wrote:
The same CIA who murdered the democraticly elected Alliende in Chili, and installed in his place the murderous military regime of Pinochet.
[/quote]
After the Chilenian Congress begged Pinochet to take over, militant communists were streaming into the country and Allende started to nationalize industries and build a communist society which is what he promised not to do…
And, surprise, Chile is not a shithole like Cuba.
Another fact to cheer up gung ho marines:
Arturo Parisi, the Italian defense minister, said during the Italian senate parlementary enquiry commission on depleted uranium:" In total, 255 soldiers who partcipated between 1996 and 2006 to missions to the Balkans, Afghanistan, Irak and Liban are struck with various types of cancers; 37 already died."
He is disagreed by Domenico Leggiero, representing the military observation department unit, charged of taking care of military servicemen and their entire families.
Leggiero says the data from Parisi is false.
“We are sorry, but this kind or reporting makes Parisi lose all credibility.”
“We had placed our hopes on him;but these numbers are too far OFF reality.”
Leggiero states official army records attest for TEN TIMES MORE SICK PEOPLE AND THREE TIMES MORE DEADS. (sic)"
“Precisely yesterday they were burrying in Sicily Giuseppe Bongiovanni, dead 2 days ago from a cancer he had contracted while in mission abroad. When we enquired about it’s case to the ministery, his name was not recorded.”
[quote]orion wrote:
jeffdirect wrote:
The same CIA who murdered the democraticly elected Alliende in Chili, and installed in his place the murderous military regime of Pinochet.
After the Chilenian Congress begged Pinochet to take over, militant communists were streaming into the country and Allende started to nationalize industries and build a communist society which is what he promised not to do…
And, surprise, Chile is not a shithole like Cuba.
[/quote]
But you are a shithole…
“The nationalization of U.S. and other foreign-owned companies led to increased tensions with the United States. The Nixon administration brought international financial pressure to bear in order to restrict economic credit to Chile. Simultaneously, the CIA funded opposition media, politicians, and organizations, helping to accelerate a campaign of domestic destabilization. By 1972, the economic progress of Allende’s first year had been reversed…”
In 1970, Senator Salvador Allende Gossens, a Marxist physician and member of Chile’s Socialist Party, who headed the “Popular Unity” (UP or “Unidad Popular”) coalition of the Socialist, Communist, Radical, and Social-Democratic Parties, along with dissident Christian Democrats, the Popular Unitary Action Movement (MAPU), and the Independent Popular Action, won a plurality of votes in a three-way contest. Despite pressure from the government of the United States, the Chilean Congress, keeping with tradition, conducted a runoff vote between the leading candidates, Allende and former president Jorge Alessandri and chose Allende by a vote of 153 to 35. Frei refused to form an alliance with Alessandri to oppose Allende, on the grounds that the Christian Democrats were a workers party and could not make common cause with the oligarchs.
Allende’s program included advancement of workers’ interests; a thoroughgoing implementation of agrarian reform; the reorganization of the national economy into socialized, mixed, and private sectors; a foreign policy of “international solidarity” and national independence; and a new institutional order (the “people’s state” or “poder popular”), including the institution of a unicameral congress. The Popular Unity platform also called for nationalization of foreign (U.S.) ownership of Chile’s major copper mines.
La Moneda Presidential Palace being bombed during the coup (1973).
An economic depression that began in 1967 peaked in 1970, exacerbated by capital flight, plummeting private investment, and withdrawal of bank deposits by those opposed to Allende’s socialist program. Production fell and unemployment rose. Allende adopted measures including price freezes, wage increases, and tax reforms, which had the effect of increasing consumer spending and redistributing income downward. Joint public-private public works projects helped reduce unemployment. Much of the banking sector was nationalized. Many enterprises within the copper, coal, iron, nitrate, and steel industries were expropriated, nationalized, or subjected to state intervention. Industrial output increased sharply and unemployment fell during the Allende administration’s first year.
Other reforms undertaken during the early Allende period included redistribution of millions of hectares of land to landless agricultural workers as part of the agrarian reform program, giving the armed forces an overdue pay increase, and providing free milk to children. The Indian Peoples Development Corporation and the Mapuche Vocational Institute were founded to address the needs of Chile’s indigenous population.
The nationalization of U.S. and other foreign-owned companies led to increased tensions with the United States. The Nixon administration brought international financial pressure to bear in order to restrict economic credit to Chile. Simultaneously, the CIA funded opposition media, politicians, and organizations, helping to accelerate a campaign of domestic destabilization. By 1972, the economic progress of Allende’s first year had been reversed and the economy was in crisis. Political polarization increased, and large mobilizations of both pro- and anti-government groups became frequent, often leading to clashes.
By early 1973, inflation was out of control. The crippled economy was further battered by prolonged and sometimes simultaneous strikes by physicians, teachers, students, truck owners, copper workers, and the small business class. A military coup overthrew Allende on September 11, 1973. As the armed forces bombarded the presidential palace (Palacio de La Moneda), Allende reportedly committed suicide.[8][9][10] A military government, led by General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, took over control of the country. The first years of the regime were marked by serious human rights violations. On October 1973, at least 70 people were murdered by the Caravan of Death. At least a thousand people were executed during the first six months of Pinochet in office, and at least two thousand more were killed during the next sixteen years, as reported by the Rettig Report. Some 30,000 were forced to flee the country, and tens of thousands of people were detained and tortured, as investigated by the 2004 Valech Commission. A new Constitution was approved by a highly irregular and undemocratic plebiscite characterized by the absence of registration lists, on September 11, 1980, and General Pinochet became President of the Republic for an 8-year term.
[quote]orion wrote:
After the Chilenian Congress begged Pinochet to take over, militant communists were streaming into the country and Allende started to nationalize industries and build a communist society which is what he promised not to do…
And, surprise, Chile is not a shithole like Cuba. [/quote]
How’s that relevant to the issue discussed? Allende was democratically elected. Unless he attacked the US, the CIA had no business overthrowing the guy.
Somehow, I sense that you’d be more than happy if the US army invaded Venezuela. Am I wrong?
[quote]FlyingFred wrote:
orion wrote:
After the Chilenian Congress begged Pinochet to take over, militant communists were streaming into the country and Allende started to nationalize industries and build a communist society which is what he promised not to do…
And, surprise, Chile is not a shithole like Cuba.
How’s that relevant to the issue discussed? Allende was democratically elected. Unless he attacked the US, the CIA had no business overthrowing the guy.
Somehow, I sense that you’d be more than happy if the US army invaded Venezuela. Am I wrong?[/quote]
Yes, you are.
Allende had around 1/3 of the popular vote and the Christian Democrates supported him after he promised to uphold the constitution ands not to nationalize anything.
He broke his promises and was ousted by the Chilenian military which had the backing of a significant part of the Chilenian people.
The idea that the CIA was vital for this coup d´état is a fantasy of the left, Allende was a misguided fool that was stopped before he could do more harm.