That’s a great story concerning both your grandfathers and how they did their part to serve their country in WWII without actually joining the military. * Very* commendable.
Moving forward a few decades, John Ashcroft avoided the Vietnam War and military service entirely because his job (teaching law at the Univ of Missouri) was deemed vital to the security of the United States. (or maybe some well-connected individual was able to get that job declared “vital”?)
Or how about John Engler’s being 2 pounds overweight for his draft physical (also during the Vietnam War)?
Mr Moto, how do you think your grandfathers would have felt about Ashcroft’s and Engler’s “contributions” to their country? To me, what those 2 did doesn’t even hold a candle to what your grandfathers (and many others) did stateside during World War II.
If you believe you are arguing with an idiot, then the joke’s on you, isn’t it?
Oh, well, why didn’t you say so? Why the coy metaphor? The fact is that I wasn’t commenting on Chris Floyd, but on you. (Note the use of second person in the original response.)
I did not ever address that post. Why are you repeating it?
Fifty such attacks were proposed, and approved, according to the air force commander during the war, General Michael Moseley. But attacks that were time-critical were not subject to such a process.You did not quote that portion.
God, how dramatic. And people worry that I’m due for a meltdown.
There are many parents now getting their asses blown up in Iraq, too. So?
All the ones relevant to your position, your own hypocrisy, your own false bravado, yes, I did. The other shit was your usual general-purpose bluster about the right to post on a message board.
If you’re not going to even try to explain what you *did * mean, though, what else can be inferred except that you once again can’t face being shown to be a selfish fool? Liberal, you too. You engaged in a foolish ad hominem, you have no substance to refute an argument which leads to distasteful conclusions, and you’re the only person left who can’t admit it.
Guys, *most * people outgrow your phase of development around the age of 11.
Note the ad-hominem attack on the writer, which was what I objected to – don’t give a turd what you call me as long as I am correct. Again, it’s right there in RED for you to see. Although I’m afraid that along with the rest of your multiple ailments you’re colorblind as well.
Because my claim in it was the genesis for the subsequent cites, Sherlock. Hard to figure, I know.
Could you try that again? In English this time? Many thanks.
What the living fuck? Are you really this stupid or are you making a especial effort just for me? READ the fucking post again. The quote’s right there and in RED yet again.
Here, I’ll re-post it, so you can give your arthritic, printless index finger and your scroll-wheel a break:
Originally quoted by Red:
See it now? I’ve even done you the favor of coloring the two different statements.
Thus no matter how much you want to get into semantic wranglings and any/all of your other dishonest tactics, my ORIGINAL point STANDS. Scumbag Rumsfeld felt no compunction authorizing at least fifty strikes with the knowledge that at least 30 civilians were likely to die.
Get it now, or do I need to use a box of crayons?
Dude, if I had a C note for each of your breakdowns, my kid’s college bill would be bought and paid for.
You’re including moi in your indictment? Color me surprised.
My conclusion is the same as it was nearly five years ago. The war in Iraq is an ethical abomination, and those who execute it are tyrants. Our own people are losing their liberty while “freedom” is being made into a dirty word all over the world. Meanwhile, you and your ilk have complained about everything from Bush’s pronunciation of “nuclear” to Condi’s hair style. And in obsessing over this piddly shit, you are fiddling while Rome burns. These are nothing but operations procedures for the administrative bureaucracy of the Pentagon. Get a fucking sense of proportion.
I’m coloring you clueless instead. My “indictment” was over the childishness of your conduct, not your attitude toward Bush’s war. They’re not mutually exclusive.
I seem to recall one about a certain politically connected young man from Arkansas who was able to get the draft board off his back by telling them he was heading off to the ROTC. Of course, that never happened.
Funny how, when you go to tell stories, some come to mind more than others, huh?
I doubt either one knew about Ashcroft or Engler. In the case of Clinton, one grandfather was dead by then, and the other one voted for him, figuring that so many years later, it didn’t matter much. So there you go.
Which is hardly connecting the dots here, but rather creating a whole new different argument which Bush never made. If I have it wrong, you can explain the part about how you deduced that Bush feels we need “good” volunteers to avoid scaping the bottom of the barrel in recruiting.
As far as I can tell he never said anything that would allow one to reasonably infer that without mindreading. Maybe I was hasty though, so I will reserve judgement awaiting your explanation.
Perhaps you’re right. Will you explain to me how you infer that he beleives our current recruits are “barrel scraping,” and needs “good ones” instead?
It’s not your fault as this is a long thread, but this is sometimes what happens when you come into the middle of a discussion. I directly addressed this in an earlier post in this thread. For my situation, it is partly specifically because I was raised in a household with an absent father serving in the military that I wouldn’t want to inflict this on my children. It’s one of the reasons I waited until later in life to have kids. You might wish to peruse the earlier posts if you would like this further clarified or discussed.
Again, I did specifically address this in an earlier post. I’d welcome the commentary and criticism, but you might want to go back and refer to what I wrote on the subject and frame your criticism from that. Suggesting that I’m disregarding this issue is incorrect.
Dude. ‘Making the assetion’ isn’t the same as explaining it.
This post of course is the third time you’ve made it, and now that you’re finally getting around to explaining what you mean, it was a misunderstanding that I could have explained to you three pages back.
In a number of posts at that point, I’d been describing as “Bush’s Iraq” or “Bush’s alternate universe” the Iraq we have, only with the apocalyptic consequences of failure there.
The thought processes described were of “those who can draw that connection.” Not Bush. Got it?
If you’d explained your assertion in the first place, I’d have told you this 120 posts ago.
Well, the length of the thread isn’t too much of an issue, as I was replying to something you said 11 posts before me. I assume you mean that you addressed my points in post 221? Where you said:
Which seems more of a reiteration than anything else. I get it, we all make choices and you respect theirs, etc etc. I guess I’m an old fashioned guy and think a “war” should be an all or nothing affair. It shouldn’t be some side story while we get along with business as usual (no need to buy war bonds; keep topping up your RRSPs instead, or the terrorists have won!).
I don’t blame anyone for wanting to be a traditional Father rather than getting his ass shot at. I would feel a little guilty about vocally supporting others being shipped off to get their ass shot off, though - your mileage obviously varies. I wonder, however, were you a fan of military adventurism when you were a young motorcycle-driving, smoking, childless risk-taker?
I’d like to point out, again, that it only seems to get characterized as military adventurism, and people speculate about the guilty feelings of others, only for wars they don’t themselves favor.
When 9/11 happened, nearly everyone could see the necessity for military action, and so didn’t question the motives of other supporters or leaders advocating action.
Now, I can certainly understand opposing the war, but I can’t understand why opposition has to be in such personal terms. A policy ought to stand or fall on its own merits.
Mr Moto
Thanks for the courteous reply.
Well, since you brought up someone on the left side of the political spectrum, let’s not forget Howard Dean (Democrat). He had a medical deferment for a spinal condition yet it did not deter him from skiing the slopes of Colorado. :rolleyes:
It seems the concept of serving your country and sacrifice changed since your grandfathers’ era hasn’t it?
Sorry, but as I’ve already pointed out, the Clinton speech just doesn’t say what you want it to say. Sadly, in this case, Hentor is right and you’re wrong. Long odds on that, I know, but it happens sometimes.
I don’t know why you and Scylla think you have to resort to going out on such weak ass limbs when the basic facts seem so strongly against the idea that RTF is proposing. There are clearly a high percentage of right-wing war supporters either in the military or who enlisted post 9/11 and were gung-ho about Iraq as well. However, trying to pretend that Clinton said anything approaching what Bush said, or trying to pretend that MM’s trip to Iraq to write, inevitably, that things are looking up and she thinks everything is just super, are NOT, in fact, good arguments.
It is almost as if the concept is a Newtonian Law of politics which guides the reasoning there:* ‘For every action undertaken by the GOP: The Democrats will have undertaken an action equally bad’*. I can only speculate that the proponent of that theory is driving at some as-yet nebulous ultimate position. But exactly what?
