Well, we still are involved in a cleanup and rebuilding effort in Afghanistan. May I ask what any of you are doing to support that?
Delighted to see you back, Mr. Moto.
As you may have noticed, nothing much has changed.
Regards,
Shodan
Maybe I have. We’ll see.
At any rate, I’m interested to know, since the OP is demanding efforts of Iraq war supporters, what he has done for American veterans or the people of Afghanistan since he did support that war.
I think that would be a minimum, token level of effort that would get him off the hook from me, of demanding more from others than he is willing to provide.
'Fess up, RTFirefly.
You know, of course, that the odds of RT fessing up are infinifessimal. He and his winged monkeys will rationalize why the rule they are applying to others does not apply to themselves. There will be some twinge in the analogy. Or some difference in the particulars. Have you stopped to consider, for example, that Afghanistan starts with an “A” while Iraq starts with an “I”? How can you possibly compare the two in any way whatsoever?
Well personally, I don’t give a flying fuck about Afghanistan, so nothing.
The Taliban is regaining power there, by the way.
Regarding Bosnia, everybody knows we didn’t go until after the war was over, right? Everybody knows there wasn’t a single US casualty, right? Great, so now everybody understands that it’s a total bullshit comparison. Clinton sent a mere 20,000 troops to a cease fire, not a war. It wasn’t necessary to do anything to help in that mission for the same reason that it isn’t necessary to help somebody carry a beer.
As I reminded Scylla the Obtuse, I’m not making a chickenhawk argument, and (B) as I said in post 139:
I don’t believe we’ll lose the war on terror if we lose Afghanistan, either. It’ll be a crying shame, because by all indications most Afghans still want our help, and don’t want to be ruled by the Taliban. But even if Afghanistan reverts to Taliban rule, we’ll just ask the Taliban government to kindly remind their citizens that if Osama should set up new camps in Afghanistan and they visit those camps, we can’t be responsible if any of them experience sudden death by cruise missile.
And then there’s what tagos said. With the addition of this: by all indications, we’re actually pulling troops from Afghanistan to go fight in Iraq. No matter how much I believe in the rightness of our war in Afghanistan, my enlisting won’t help unless and until a certain Moron-In-Chief realizes that he needs to be sending troops in the other direction.
So I enumerated three criteria which must be satisfied for one to be a hypocrite to support a war merely with one’s opinions rather than one’s enlistment. Afghanistan, IMHO, fails on two of them.
But how about you Mr. Moto? Do you believe we’ll lose the GWoT if we lose either or both of these wars?
I’ve defined criteria. Like I reminded you back in post 139, you can either dispute the validity of the criteria, or dispute my reasoning about how those criteria apply or fail to apply to one war or the other.
If you think I’m moving the goalposts, please point out what the goalposts were at an earlier point in the thread.
Gotta say, you’re posting an awful lot of trivial bullshit commentary on the debate that doesn’t exactly qualify as participating in it. No rule against it, but it sure says “chickenshit.”
Yeah, except that that wasn’t the comparison. We weren’t comparing the two wars. We were comparing the two speeches.
Holy Jesus, you shoot down my analogy of Clinton’s clarion call with Bush’s, and then you yourself compare the Bosnia mission with toting a can of beer.
I’m demanding efforts of Iraq war supporters who believe the Bush Administration’s warnings of apocalyptic consequences if we lose the war, not simply to Iraq war supporters.
That should be pretty clear from the criteria I’ve set down in various places in this thread. But I explicitly said this to TheLoadedDog @106.
I may be wrong, but as far as I can tell, I’ve applied that criterion consistently throughout this thread.
Apparently, you think you’re the only one posting. Meanwhile, I’m still trying to get an answer. Not that you owe me one, but still. You could at least say you just don’t want to answer, and cut out all the horse dodging bullshit.
Both presidents painted a picture of a direct threat to US security (which you attempted to deny, but the text is up for everyone to see). Both presidents used buzzwords like “terrorism” and “weapons of mass destruction”. Both thought the situation was urgent enough to make a prime time speech and send troops. You were asked why you require a particular response to one but not the other.
There’s no reason to be rude.
I do have my opinions about this war, and I do considerably more for it than spouting off on a message board. I’ll spell this out for you if you really want me to.
Thing is, though, nobody asked me to do these things. It is not a requirement that I do them to be a good citizen, a good conservative Republican, or consistent in my debate points. I do them in part because I want to, and in part because some of these things are my job.
I have not demanded that other people do anything. I think everybody has to find their own path.
I do think, though, that if you look at the path others have taken and find it wanting in some way, it might be a good idea to look at your own path as well. I’m not saying that you need to be perfect to criticize - that would be silly. But if you criticize me for not doing enough to support a war I favor, I have a right to ask what you are doing to support a war that you favor, and you are on record here as supporting.
And maybe it might inspire you to send a few bucks to the DAV. Or Operation Iraqi Children, an organization set up by Gary Sinise to buy schoolbooks for Iraqi schoolkids. Or if you feel you’re doing enough, that’s fine.
With all I’m doing, and it is a lot, I think I fall short most of the time.
If I thought you were one of the voices in my head, I’d be checking into a nutbin.
An answer to what, exactly?
AFAICT, I’ve answered everything you’ve asked. You just don’t like the answers, but can’t rebut them.
I answered that one clearly and specifically @137, then made explicit my criteria for distinguishing one from the other @139, just in case they weren’t clear before then.
If you don’t like that answer, and can’t rebut it, that’s not my problem - it’s yours.
Apparently only for very specific values of ‘rude’:
No, we wouldn’t want rudeness, would we?
Did you or did you not require the same reaction from people who supported Clinton’s Wider War doctrine as you do from people who support Bush’s Spread of Terrorism doctrine?
This thread is still alive? Maybe we should go back at look at the fundamental fallacy in the OP. “Winning” the war on terror means we will have eliminated all the terrorists, and ceased to be threatened by, presumably, radical Islamists. But “not winning” does not mean we’ve lost, it just means that the battle goes on, at whatever level of intensity. Who knows what that intensity level will be, and nothing in Bush’s quote says that “Western Civilization” will be lost.
According to Bush, Iraq is a battleground in the WoT. He even says that it is 'the central front" in the war on terror. But you don’t lose a war by losing a battle, even in the “cetnral front”. This over analysis of one line in a “Fact Sheet” as though it creates a logical conundrum for war supporters is pretty silly, RTF. The war has very few supporters as it is, and this argument, reaching beyond reason as it is, isn’t going to convince any of them to change their position.
But if it makes you feel good to rant about it, this is the right place to do just that! 
Ah, Liberal’s back, Mr. Moto’s back, Shodan is regularly farting a “Right on, Team!” lickspittle post.
It sure does feel like home again.
The similarities, Liberal, between your “Gotcha!” of Clinton versus Bush end at “They were both presidents!” There’s a vast fucking difference between telling Matt Lauer on national television that his family is in peril and suggesting that stability in Europe is vital to US security interests. There is a cavernous gulf between “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” and “bad stuff tends to threaten freedom, democracy, peace and prosperity.”
That dog don’t fucking hunt. But I’m sure that dog is rife with nits for you to dissect.
And John Mace! I’m surprised at you! Clinton “lied” to get us into Bosnia by saying that our interests in a stable Europe were why we fought two wars? You can’t really regard this as a lie, can you?
I mean, do you feel that we were disinterested in Europe until Dec. 7, 1941? How do you explain lend-lease? How do you explain the fact that we didn’t just limit our fighting to the Pacific, if we were only responding to an attack on us?
Comparing that “lie” to the yellowcake lie, or the mobile weapons lab lie, or the ship steaming around in the gulf laden with WMD, or the Colin Powell Economy Super-pak lie fest? Jeez, I know a couple of the old faces are back, but do you really need to fall into lockstep so fucking fast?
And RTFirefly, FWIW, I thought your point was expressly clear from the get go, and I said so in a post a few pages back. The conservatives chose to straw man that bad boy and respond where they could. As far as I know, the only person to respond to my post was Airman Doors, who fairly badly missed the point, responding to all my “thens” without even apparently understanding all the “ifs” than preceded them.
No, Scylla, I will not waste my time rebutting any post of yours where you try to defend a position that I (and many others) have already torn to shreds many a time.
For now, you may content yourself with re-reading Elvis’ most excellent post on the matter just a few posts above this one. Or not. I really don’t give a damn.
Allow me to answer that from the perspective of someone who was over there.
As a background, for supporting sanctions and photoreconnaissance missions in the former Yugoslavia, our unit earned a Joint Meritorious Unit Award, a Navy Unit Commendation, and we were all awarded the NATO Medal. I was there from 1994 to 1996. We supported maritime air patrols from an airbase in Sicily.
I thought at the time that anyone who had an opinion about what was happening over there ought to get their asses over there and learn about it firsthand.
Time and (I hope) wisdom have shown my that my previous opinion was grounded more in passion than in reason. But it was sincerely held at the time.
I reference, in only slight jest, Bush’s interview with Matt Lauer. In that interview, he makes it clear that “We are at war against people who want to come and kill your family.” It hardly seems that Bush is telling us that not winning the war means that it goes on. I would interpret that to mean that not winning the war means that Matt Lauer’s family is dead.
Spin all you want, but it’s incredibly thin material you are working with John Mace. The simple point is that Bush very much wants us to regard this as a fight for our very lives. You can take one line and make it not mean all that much, in the same way that you can try to suggest that saying we fought WWII for our allies in Europe is a “lie.” It’s just that it’s sad to see you do so.