[John Fogarty]
Day by day I hear the voices rising
Started with a whisper like it did before
Day by day we count the dead and dying
Ship the bodies home while the networks all keep score
Did you hear ‘em talkin’ 'bout it on the radio
Could your eyes believe the writing on the wall
Did that voice inside you say I’ve heard it all before
It’s like Deja Vu all over again
One by one I see the old ghosts rising
Stumblin’ 'cross Big Muddy
Where the light gets dim
Day after day another Momma’s crying
She’s lost her precious child
To a war that has no end
Did you hear ‘em talkin’ 'bout it on the radio
Did you stop to read the writing at The Wall
Did that voice inside you say
I’ve seen this all before
It’s like Deja Vu all over again
It’s like Deja Vu all over again
]/JF]
The tactics you describe, along with all the other nasty stuff we’ve heard about prisoner mistreatment certainly sounds terroristic to me; at the very least, thuggish. “Shock and Awe” is classic military terrorism; good old fashioned scare them into submission.
Military tactics design to terrify people are terrorism, unless you buy the old, cynical definition “A terrorist is what the big army calls the little army.” .
I’d call them terrible activities, sure; thuggish is as good a term as any. But not terrorist activities in the same sense that civilians acting on their own to hijack airplanes or set bombs off in subway stations or poison water supplies are terrorist activities. Friend Psycho Pirate is the one equating military actions he doesn’t approve of with terrorism, not me. I’ve been opposed to the invasion of Iraq since it first occured to me to say “Okay, so where are the weapons?” but I’ve never considered American soldiers to be terrorists. And not because of any “I oppose the war but support the troops” business either, but because they’re soldiers. Soldiers who break the rules are war criminals; soldiers who don’t are just soldiers.
:eek:
Christ, there’s 3 year old mentally handicapped kids who know more about the law than you. If you’re going to make an assertion that someone is guilty, it is up to you to prove said guilt. A hunch with no evidence doesn’t cut it in the courtrooms or here, and it certainly shouldn’t cut it on the world stage either.
If you’re going to make moronic statements such as this, how can we possibly take the rest of your arguments in this thread seriously?
What exactly are “terror or terrorist tactics”? Feel free to be specific. Have fun picking your way through the minefield.
I’d have my obligatory hissy fit only I just can’t be bothered. Too tired. If it helps you to live in your little happy bubble where those that agree with you are everybody and everybody else is nobody, well, whatever dude.
As someone who is terrified of minefields, you, sir, I accuse!
-Joe, terrorist lite
I can’t respond to all of you individually. This is officially a classic SDMB pile-on, so I see no point in posting further to this thread. By the way, this is why conservative posters who support this war often refuse to discuss it on this board. Not playing my violin and requesting a pity party here, just telling it like it is. Your minds are already made up, and so is mine.
Let me just say that I agree with Bush’s strategy for keeping this country safe.
“I made a decision. America will not wait to be attacked again. We will confront emerging threats before they fully materialize.”
For those of you who say Iraq was not a threat to us, it wasn’t for a lack of trying. I believe they were an emerging threat, just as the vast majority of people believed that they had WMDs (including many politicians who were serving before George W. Bush took office). Go here for a full list. If Clinton hadn’t sat around with his thumb up his butt while Bin Laden was attacking our embassies, our World Trade Center, and the U.S.S. Cole, we probably wouldn’t have had to experience the horror of 9/11. But we did, and now the rules have changed. We are on the offensive, and we will stay there until the job is done. I don’t care if it takes 5 years. I dont’ care if it takes 50 years.
On a personal note, I feel that it is our country’s moral obligation to help those who cannot help themselves. The people of Iraq were living under a brutal despotic regime with no freedom. I agree with Bush’s characterization of freedom: “It is not America’s gift to Iraq; it is God’s gift to all people”. These people deserve to be free, and they will be free. Iraq is just the beginning.
Certainly makes my day. How about the rest of you guys?
I’m incredibly hard already.
I agree that there is no clear evidence of criminal insanity in Psycho Pirate’s posts, but lack of evidence does not necessarily imply innocence. 
Conservative posters do discuss it. You’re making claims that have been shown to be false, and using double-standards when it comes to your ‘logic’. It’s not the Big Bad Liberals piling on you. It’s that you have not made a case that holds up to scrutiny.
It’s as if everyone is saying the world is round, and you insist it’s flat. When ‘everyone piles on’, you refuse to discuss it claiming that no one listens to you and they’re all going to sail off the edge. (‘It’s turtles all the way down!’)
You cry, ‘WMDs! 9/11! Saddam is a terrorist!’ But Iraq had no WMDs. While lack of evidence is not evidence of innocence, that’s not the way our legal system (which our soldiers are sworn to protect) works. It is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove his case. Iraq had nothing to do with the WTC attacks. Again, it’s up to the accuser to prove it did. A couple of officials were approached by Al Qaeda, and they basically sent the terrorists away. Saddam did not support Al Qaeda. If he did not have WMDs, was not planning any attacks on the U.S., did not have ties with Al Qaeda, and had nothing to do with 9/11, then there is no reason why we should have attacked his country. Yes, he supported Palestinian suicide bombers; but PSBs had nothing to do with attacks on the U.S.
And yet when this is pointed out to you, you stick your fingers in your ears and run away.
I’m as Liberal as they come. [sub]Well, except for gun control.[/sub] But I have read comments by Conservatives here that I was hard-put to rebut. This is because they brought more to the table than ‘WMDs! 9/11! Saddam is a terrorist!’.
Oh I do love this chestnut…
And if Bush hadn’t sat around with his thumb up his butt REFUSING to let the Pentagon take out Zarqawi before the war, the insurgency might not be nearly as lethal.
Pointing out that Clinton was as incompetent as Bush doesn’t make a difference to me because I think they’re both shitstains.
What “job” do you speak of? Eliminating an Ideal?
Like "The war on drugs?
Like "The war on poverty?
Like "The war on illiteracy?
You can’t eliminate these things any more then you can eliminate terrorism, get that through your fucking heads! The only thing we can do is kill the people that are trying to kill us, and do it in a fashion that won’t create a new “batch” in the process. Right now we’re creating more terrorists then we’re eliminating.
This war needs to be fought in the shadows, out of the spotlight of the media. We get some AQ big, shut the fuck up, nobody needs to know. Just disappear his ass and move on the next next guy. It helps reduce the Martyr factor, which will go a long way. It should be more like going after an international crime syndicate or something.
We simply can’t afford the manpower, resources or money to do it for more then 10 - 20 years
I’m all for helping people, but not at the expense of Americans helping themselves first.
Ah yes, the “classic SDMB pile-on.”
Followed, of course, by the classic SDMB “my argument is crap, so i’m taking my bat and ball and going home” whine.
People have not been abusing you indiscriminately. In fact, for the most part people haven’t been abusing you at all. They have simply been responding to your claims and assertions with arguments of their own. You have every right to choose not to participate further, but it’s pretty unseemly to whine about a pile-on. You’ve been treated pretty kindly in this thread by people who disagree strongly with your position.
Oh, woe to the conservatives! Wherever can they state their opinions without being roundly chastised?
Suck it up. Now you know how non-conservatives feel in today’s America.
I’ve been shot down on these boards from time to time. It’s embarrassing. Here is what you can do:
[ul][li]Read the arguments and see that you’re wrong. Say, ‘I stand corrected.’[/li][li]Read the arguments and still believe that you are right. Provide more, stronger evidence to back up your assertations.[/li][li]Read the arguments and still believe you’re right. Agree to disagree. (I believe this should be used for philosophical differences instead of issues that can be decided by the preponderance of evidence.)[/li][li]Read the arguments and still believe you’re right. Keep re-stating your arguments, which have already been shown to be incorrect.[/li][li]Read the arguments and still believe you’re right. Claim that the opposition is ‘out to get’ you and your ‘side’. Claim you’re being persecuted.[/ul][/li]If I’m wrong (and I have been in the past), I’d rather be shown to be wrong – in a polite manner, of course – than to continue to fight a losing battle. The SDMB is about fighting ignorance. If I’m wrong, then enlighten me. ‘I stand corrected’ is an honourable response.
If I think I’m right but have not provided enough evidence for my argument, then I should find better evidence and continue the debate until I convince the other side, the other side convinces me, or we agree to disagree.
Agreeing to disagree is okay, but when strong evidence is involved it seems a bit of a cop-out. (e.g., agreeing to disagree on religion is better than agreeing to disagree as to whether the invasion was justified because there isn’t any evidence – as far as I know – that God doesn’t exist but there is evidence that the reasons for invading Iraq were falsified or incorrect.)
Restating arguments that have alread been shot down, without backing the statements up with stronger evidence, only indicates that you’re not willing to listen and learn. If you disagree, back it up. Don’t just say ‘I’m right, and you’re wrong.’ Claiming persecution is similarly unhelpful.
No, you fucking dumb shit, this is a bunch of people smarter than you pointing out that your argument is stupid and makes no sense.
Let’s take this little oft-repeated chestnut as a prime example. Observe how a modicum of intelligence, awareness, and simple logic reduces the idealistic sentiment to ashes and rubble in the real world.
Ahem:
How the fuck do you reconcile that statement with the equally-often-heard “we have to fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here” thing?
How do you call this war “America’s gift to Iraq” while at the same time you’re saying you’re making their country a honeypot for the scum of the earth?
How can you possibly pat yourself on the back for trying to make Iraq a better place while you’re simultaneously patting yourself on the back for making it a worse place?
Are you honestly so stupid that you can’t see the completely irrational and fundamentally contradictory nature of your own arguments? What the fuck is wrong with you?
Sure, but all your guys just keep shooting the guy down over and over.
All he’s doing is staying the course, facts be damned.
In case you guys haven’t been paying attention that’s not ignorance, it’s “being presidential”.
-Joe
Being “presidential” was a lot more fun during the 90’s, you know.
So…the ritual for making you a mod involves removing your 18" prehensile tongue, eh?
I wonder what they did to all the others. Then again, I also wonder about the gaudere bikini picture that’s supposed to be floating around.
Maybe it’s just that almost anything is more interesting than another Buppet (kind of like Muppet, but Bush Puppet) spouting Today’s Talking Points. Notice how the Buppet even managed to whip out “It’s God’s gift to the world” gem only a day or two after The Leader (Praise the Leader!) used it?
-Joe, only listened to the speech. I didn’t inhale.
I for one would die a happy man, if the goddamn pundits would point out that the world is not black and white, but instead a highly nuanced shade of grey.
The world is not made of polar opposites, and it’s perfectly fine to believe in things that may contradict each other from time to time.