Moderateman Moderateman

War Protestors and Politicians PUT UP OR SHUT UP

▼

War Protestors and Politicians PUT UP OR SHUT UP

Heres is your chance take it please

from JoeUser Forums
For all the whining crybabies protesting the war and bemoaning the treatment of the poor terrorist here is a great idea.

All you have to do is get a new bill together saying NO MORE FUNDING OF WAR>> THATS all

then sign your names to it, get on television and get together a coalition of the weak and cowardly to have petitions signed.

Its very simple really all you have to do is come out and tell america "we will not have part in the greater war on terror"

But of course then you have to live with all your neighbors knowing who you are.

The politicions knowing there re-election is in risk of failing WILL NOT HAVE THE BALLZ to do this.

If your so sure this war is a bad war, wrong war, wrong time, wrong reasons, step up to the national plate and take your swings, out front in view of everyone.

But since you value your jobs and eating at the public troth YOUR not going to do this, your just going to cry, and whine in the background, take sneak shots at the President.
politics
16,740 views 67 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Greggbert: 'If you're against this war, then that must mean you're against all wars.'
Dr. Guy: 'I dont recall anyone saying that.'
Moderateman's initial post: ' All you have to do is get a new bill together saying NO MORE FUNDING OF WAR>> THATS all.'
QED. I think.

Moderateman: 'as someone that waded in blood up to my ankles in wartime I too hate war,,, but lets try to remember we were attacked.. k?'
Er, not by Iraq you weren't.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Greggbert: 'If you're against this war, then that must mean you're against all wars.'
Dr. Guy: 'I dont recall anyone saying that.'
Moderateman's initial post: ' All you have to do is get a new bill together saying NO MORE FUNDING OF WAR>> THATS all.'
QED. I think.

Moderateman: 'as someone that waded in blood up to my ankles in wartime I too hate war,,, but lets try to remember we were attacked.. k?'
Er, not by Iraq you weren't.
Elemental: Reforged
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Moderateman: 'as someone that waded in blood up to my ankles in wartime I too hate war,,, but lets try to remember we were attacked.. k?'
Er, not by Iraq you weren't.


Tell that to the US and British pilots patroling the "No Fly Zones", which Iraq agreed to respect as part of the Safwan Accords (the ceasefire agreement between the Coalition and Iraq). Also the many infractions of the ceasefire agreement by Iraq gave the U.S. more than enough legal justification for a return to hostilities with the Hussein Regime.

So, yes, Iraq did attack the US (unless you consider an attack on our jets something other than an attack against the U.S.)
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

You want us to stop talking about the war and Dubyah. Show me that he has a plan in Iraq to end it. He hasn't up to now, just wishful thinking. He thought he could come into Iraq with insufficient troops because they would not have to act as police in the post war. They thought everyone would forget they have no food, power as long as they had freedom and gotten rid of Saddam. Another way to get us to stop talking about the war is to find one reason originally presented that is even valid anymore. Put up or shut up.

WOW!  I did not know you were such a military expert!  Did you get that at West Point or Annapolis?  Geez must be hard getting pull over shirts on.  Why dont you send your advice to Rumsfeld!  He could use someone that knows everything.

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top

And clearly from the beginning of this grammar error ridden rant there was name calling.

You fail to grasp the difference between calling an action stupid, and calling people stupid.  He did not call you or me any names, just the actions of some.

Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

No... but it could be the war protesters are the left.... which we are...

Another classic error in logic.

Perhaps all protesters are left, but not all left are protesters.  It is not transitive.

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top

Greggbert: 'If you're against this war, then that must mean you're against all wars.'
Dr. Guy: 'I dont recall anyone saying that.'
Moderateman's initial post: ' All you have to do is get a new bill together saying NO MORE FUNDING OF WAR>> THATS all.'
QED. I think.

And the modifier ALL is where?  QnotED.

Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: sandy2Posted: Thursday, January 27, 2005and on furthure review I did not name one politician nor name the left either,,, why does anyone assume that i was shooting at the left and left pols? um could it be i hit the nail on the head?No... but it could be the war protesters are the left.... which we are...


there are moderate republicans that think this war is wrong also, btw I am one and my wife is another...Maybe some of you should try the patriotic approach to naysaying the war ala pat buchanan
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
So, yes, Iraq did attack the US (unless you consider an attack on our jets something other than an attack against the U.S.)


I think there is definitely a fundamental difference here. If someone is kidnapped in South American because they're from the U.S. I wouldn't claim that Brazil attacked the U.S..

You fail to grasp the difference between calling an action stupid, and calling people stupid. He did not call you or me any names, just the actions of some.


How is "whining crybabies" not name calling?

Moderateman, I have never seen you engage in any sort of intelligent discussion regarding the war. It's fine if you have the convictions you have and choose to post them on your blog. But I see little value in discussing important issues or how I feel about a topic with someone who responds with such a great lack of maturity.

-Suspeckted

I calls em as I sees em....weak,cowardly,whiney, also spineless, knock kneed, and dandruff filled brains.I am backkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk left leaning losers beware!!!!!!!!!!
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #25 By: ParaTed2k - 1/28/2005 12:30:02 AM
You want us to stop talking about the war and Dubyah. Show me that he has a plan in Iraq to end it.


Prs. Bush has told us when he will bring the troops home. He said he would 1) When the job is done and 2) When the government of Iraq asks him to. That is about as much as he can (or should) tell us, without telling the enemy what they need to do to win the war. You don't win wars by telling the enemy your strategies beforehand.

War is not fought on a day planner, palm pilot, or calendar, it is based on a series of objectives and should only end when either the objectives are met, or either side has been broken down to the point they can no longer continue the fight. If the pentagon or the president did have a timetable in mind, It would be completely assanine to tell the enemy what that might be. All that does is signal to the enemy how much longer they have to push it before we just up and quit.

In war, secrets are lives, quit insisting that our government put our troops in even more danger than they already are, just to satisfy our own shortsightedness.


nope the left wants a specific date set so the terroist can sit back and wait for us to leave.. then come out and take over country, then the left will disavow anything doing with it by proclaiming bush did it it was his decision and he was wrong to do it.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Moderateman, I have never seen you engage in any sort of intelligent discussion regarding the war. It's fine if you have the convictions you have and choose to post them on your blog. But I see little value in discussing important issues or how I feel about a topic with someone who responds with such a great lack of maturity.


then I STRONGLY SUGGEST YOU DO NOT.. SIMPLE HUH?
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top



Reply #34 By: Suspeckted - 1/28/2005 10:28:25 AM
So, yes, Iraq did attack the US (unless you consider an attack on our jets something other than an attack against the U.S.)


I think there is definitely a fundamental difference here. If someone is kidnapped in South American because they're from the U.S. I wouldn't claim that Brazil attacked the U.S..


Once again you fail to grasp a "fundemental principle". If you shoot at one countries miliitary in international air space/waters, that is actually by international law considered an act of war! FYI, it's also considered an attack on a country. Shooting at a military jet in a no-fly zone is a BIG difference from kidnapping someone.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think there is definitely a fundamental difference here. If someone is kidnapped in South American because they're from the U.S. I wouldn't claim that Brazil attacked the U.S..

A government attacked our forces, not some criminals in Brazil.  YOur analogy is flawed.

Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top

How is "whining crybabies" not name calling?

Are you?  If you are not, then he was not talking about you.  But when you say "all blacks are idiots", then you are name calling.  He stated an action is described by, not a people or you or me are that.

Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
Once again you fail to grasp a "fundemental principle". If you shoot at one countries miliitary in international air space/waters, that is actually by international law considered an act of war! FYI, it's also considered an attack on a country. Shooting at a military jet in a no-fly zone is a BIG difference from kidnapping someone.


You're absolutely right, there is a big difference, and I'd also say that shooting down a military jet (non civilians) and crashing a small handful of jets into major U.S. buildings containing a ton of civilians is quite different as well.

Are you? If you are not, then he was not talking about you. But when you say "all blacks are idiots", then you are name calling. He stated an action is described by, not a people or you or me are that.


The question was not whether I was being called names, it was whether there was name-calling at all.

-suspeckted
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top

The question was not whether I was being called names, it was whether there was name-calling at all.

No, the question was who was being called names first, as I was the one who started it.  Calling A jew a jew is not name calling if they are jewish.  Calling a cry baby a cry baby is not name calling if they are one.  No one called you or any other singular person a cry baby.  However the post that started it, called all republicans lunkheads.

Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #40 By: Suspeckted - 1/28/2005 3:47:21 PM
You're absolutely right, there is a big difference, and I'd also say that shooting down a military jet (non civilians) and crashing a small handful of jets into major U.S. buildings containing a ton of civilians is quite different as well.


I'm going to ask a silly question. What in the world does this have to do with what you were talking about?




Reply #34 By: Suspeckted - 1/28/2005 10:28:25 AM
So, yes, Iraq did attack the US (unless you consider an attack on our jets something other than an attack against the U.S.)


I think there is definitely a fundamental difference here. If someone is kidnapped in South American because they're from the U.S. I wouldn't claim that Brazil attacked the U.S..
Reply #43 from PolMach Forums Top
WOW! I did not know you were such a military expert! Did you get that at West Point or Annapolis? Geez must be hard getting pull over shirts on. Why dont you send your advice to Rumsfeld! He could use someone that knows everything.


I pull out my West Point diploma when you do. Rumsfeld has been shown not to listen to advice given from him. Under his command the army chief of staff was made into a lame duck and his replacement named a year early, something unheard of, because his views did not agree with the easy scenario. The army chief of staff went to west point, did you?
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
So, yes, Iraq did attack the US (unless you consider an attack on our jets something other than an attack against the U.S.)I think there is definitely a fundamental difference here. If someone is kidnapped in South American because they're from the U.S. I wouldn't claim that Brazil attacked the U.S..


You claim a "fundemental difference" but your example is far from fundemental. If someone in South America killed an American, that would be one individual (or group) acting on their own against another individual (or group). It woud (and should) be handled by the local authorities and U.S. Consolate. The fact that the batteries were posted in the No Fly Zones was violation enough, but to actually fire them destroyed the terms of the Ceasefire agreement and made a return to hostilities an option. In other words, Iraqi anti aircraft batteries firing on U.S. and British jets was an act of war, unlike your crime scenario.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top

brilliant strategy, put our military where the terrorists can get to them in an area ripe for recruitment because we left the people to the looters, the kidnappers and couldn't even get basic utilities to them for weeks.
Yeah, like "Bring them on!"


nope the left wants a specific date set so the terroist can sit back and wait for us to leave
The terrorists know eventually we are going to leave, but they're not waiting.


In other words, Iraqi anti aircraft batteries firing on U.S. and British jets was an act of war, unlike your crime scenario.
Exactly and the airforce should have taken them out--as simple as that.


the main one who sticks out in my mind who wasn't died in a plane crash in Minnesota.
Amen to that, and I can't imagine him resting in peace due to this crazy war.


 

Reply #46 from PolMach Forums Top
I pull out my West Point diploma when you do. Rumsfeld has been shown not to listen to advice given from him. Under his command the army chief of staff was made into a lame duck and his replacement named a year early, something unheard of, because his views did not agree with the easy scenario. The army chief of staff went to west point, did you?


Lies are cheap, allegations cheaper. The truth costs a lot and you have none. How about providing your backup for your OPinion?

if not, that is all it is, and I am glad he is Sec Def, and you are not!
Reply #47 from PolMach Forums Top
The terrorists know eventually we are going to leave, but they're not waiting.


And they are dying over there, not here. Ever hear of the 'Rope-a-Dope' strategy?
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top


Reply By: stevendedalusPosted: Saturday, January 29, 2005brilliant strategy, put our military where the terrorists can get to them in an area ripe for recruitment because we left the people to the looters, the kidnappers and couldn't even get basic utilities to them for weeks.Yeah, like "Bring them on!"


Now that was and is a huge mistake....
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
In other words, Iraqi anti aircraft batteries firing on U.S. and British jets was an act of war, unlike your crime scenario.Exactly and the airforce should have taken them out--as simple as that.


steve your a real smart man,,,,the truth is the airforce did not take em out...simple as that.
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
In other words, Iraqi anti aircraft batteries firing on U.S. and British jets was an act of war, unlike your crime scenario.Exactly and the airforce should have taken them out--as simple as that.


The problem is that we did take them out. But Saddam simply bought more and put some poorly trained Joe conscript behind the new AA guns. We could not simply keep reacting to shots taken at us, because sooner or later the odds are that those missiles and guns was going to hit something. The law of averages was there. It was a must to either stop the supply of new missiles (something the was not happening under the oil for food program) or change the person forcing those conscripts into firing them. We tried the first, but their was just too many profiteers out there for Saddam to get more missiles from. So in the end we did the second option.

That's My Two Cents