"SUPPORT THE TROOPS"

An emotional argument used by the Bush administration to rally people behing POLICY is that Americans should support the men and women in uniform.  If we take on our rights with vigorous responsibility, we must exercise our speech when we disagree with our government policy.  In oppressive tyrannical states, they fear open speech against policy and have no qualms using the soldiers and sailors to help shape public opinion.  We have such a government in place.  Quite frequently Bush, Rice, and others, when faced with increasing policy opposition have accused naysayers of "undermining our men and women in uniform".

When you must argue about war, and I hope everyone DOES argue about war, try to rise above this cheap transparent trick.  When you listen to your government speak on television, or read the speeches on other media, learn to recognize when they're offering such rally calls as "support the troops".  Whenever you hear them your heart should not jump, but instead your stomach should churn with disgust.  How dare they play with the lives of our families in a policy debate?  Is their position on policy so weak that it cannot stand without saying "well our troops are already there, if we openly discuss why they're there, you put their lives in jeopardy."  They do dare and they do not care that you disapprove, if it works to get you to stop questioning policy.

Thats true, how dare they play god with your lives.

I know a group in town that is way anti-war, they still have support our troops signs, cause they care.

I hope the troops do great, they're good people. 

But I also don't like politicians toying with people's emotions.

[quote author=iago link=topic=13498.msg137411#msg137411 date=1134496139]
I hope the troops do great, they're good people.

But I also don't like politicians toying with people's emotions.
[/quote]

It can't be helped though.  It's known that when a politician is telling you one thing, in reality they are really telling you something else.  I suppose the level of gullibility has grown quite large.

[quote author=Explicit[nK] link=topic=13498.msg137412#msg137412 date=1134496274]
[quote author=iago link=topic=13498.msg137411#msg137411 date=1134496139]
I hope the troops do great, they're good people.

But I also don't like politicians toying with people's emotions.
[/quote]

It can't be helped though.  It's known that when a politician is telling you one thing, in reality they are really telling you something else.  I suppose the level of gullibility has grown quite large.
[/quote]

And this is why I hate politicians and don't vote. 

This "support our troops" thing is such a bunch of crap. We had the same thing here for a while. The answer to this bunch of crap is:

No, I don't support our troops. They shouldn't have been sent there. That said, I very much hope that as few of them as possible die. I also hope that they kill as few people as possible. I also hope they come home as soon as possible, and that when they get back, they use their vote to kick out of government the idiots who put them in harm's way for no good reason.

I find it amazing that Grok, being a retired member of the armed forces, is against anything that involves supporting our troops. I have respect for Grok simply because he served, even though I disagree with almost everything he says. I also have respect for everyone else that is or has served, because they answered the call and rose to defend our great nation. Anyone who doesn't support them, I feel, shouldn't be protected by them.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13498.msg137462#msg137462 date=1134510685]
I find it amazing that Grok, being a retired member of the armed forces, is against anything that involves supporting our troops. I have respect for Grok simply because he served, even though I disagree with almost everything he says. I also have respect for everyone else that is or has served, because they answered the call and rose to defend our great nation. Anyone who doesn't support them, I feel, shouldn't be protected by them.
[/quote]I used to think that way, about having respect for people just because they served.  I now find that it doesn't matter if they serverd or not...they could've just been in it specifically for the money (colege education money) & couldn't have given a damn about what happens to us.

Very true, but I'd much rather have a blanket-affection of respect versus one of disrespect. I'm grateful we have men and women that are willing to do this for us, and without them our nation wouldn't be as great as it now is. Certainly Grok wouldn't like it, I'd think, if his son or daughter (or himself as a retiree) were being disrespected.

Plus we have Invert here who's in the Army iirc, and Jigsaw is joining up. What about them? Should we not care to support them?

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13498.msg137462#msg137462 date=1134510685]
I find it amazing that Grok, being a retired member of the armed forces, is against anything that involves supporting our troops. I have respect for Grok simply because he served, even though I disagree with almost everything he says. I also have respect for everyone else that is or has served, because they answered the call and rose to defend our great nation. Anyone who doesn't support them, I feel, shouldn't be protected by them.
[/quote]

You are precisely the type of person I wrote this post for, and hope to educate you on the differences between emotional argument and policy debate.

Part 1. President George W. Bush is the person who sent the young men and women in uniform to die in Iraq.  His decision was POLICY.  It was his policy decision that put them in harm's way.  If any single person in this entire world is NOT supporting the troops, by any definition that you would use against me, then President Bush should be your #1 target of that accusation.  He has full power to "support the troops" by correcting his policy, a policy which he admits was based on wrong information, yet he does not.  Instead he keeps sending troops to die for a cause that was non-existant.

Part 2.  I fully support our troops as American citizens who have also committed a portion of their lives to protecting the United States Constitution.  However, I am wholly opposed to the POLICY implementation which is to take honorable and truly patriotic citizens and throw them into a false conflict with real danger for imagined causes.

The thing is, you cannot understand my position, but I do understand yours.  I used to be programmed in the same way, believing that "supporting my troops" is equivalent and intertwined with "agreeing to executive policy" from the White House.  After all, they are our elected leaders, surely they must be doing the right thing for our country, for our freedom, hell, for the safety of our own lives!  If I cannot publicly agree with policy, it follows that I must not support the troops.  And as you say, I do not deserve protection from them.

If you could understand my position on this, you would see that support of troops and support of policy are not just two sides of the same coin, they are just two coins in the same strong box.  They're related in that both issues are in this same box (war in Iraq), but realizing that one is a silver dollar and the other is fools gold should not be a quantum leap of recognition!

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13498.msg137474#msg137474 date=1134511921]
Plus we have Invert here who's in the Army iirc, and Jigsaw is joining up. What about them? Should we not care to support them?
[/quote]

Blunt question -- In your mind, is disagreeing with policy the same as not supporting our troops?

[quote author=Grok link=topic=13498.msg137475#msg137475 date=1134512188]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13498.msg137462#msg137462 date=1134510685]
I find it amazing that Grok, being a retired member of the armed forces, is against anything that involves supporting our troops. I have respect for Grok simply because he served, even though I disagree with almost everything he says. I also have respect for everyone else that is or has served, because they answered the call and rose to defend our great nation. Anyone who doesn't support them, I feel, shouldn't be protected by them.
[/quote]

You are precisely the type of person I wrote this post for, and hope to educate you on the differences between emotional argument and policy debate.

Part 1. President George W. Bush is the person who sent the young men and women in uniform to die in Iraq.  His decision was POLICY.  It was his policy decision that put them in harm's way.  If any single person in this entire world is NOT supporting the troops, by any definition that you would use against me, then President Bush should be your #1 target of that accusation.  He has full power to "support the troops" by correcting his policy, a policy which he admits was based on wrong information, yet he does not.  Instead he keeps sending troops to die for a cause that was non-existant.

Part 2.  I fully support our troops as American citizens who have also committed a portion of their lives to protecting the United States Constitution.  However, I am wholly opposed to the POLICY implementation which is to take honorable and truly patriotic citizens and throw them into a false conflict with real danger for imagined causes.

The thing is, you cannot understand my position, but I do understand yours.  I used to be programmed in the same way, believing that "supporting my troops" is equivalent and intertwined with "agreeing to executive policy" from the White House.  After all, they are our elected leaders, surely they must be doing the right thing for our country, for our freedom, hell, for the safety of our own lives!  If I cannot publicly agree with policy, it follows that I must not support the troops.  And as you say, I do not deserve protection from them.

If you could understand my position on this, you would see that support of troops and support of policy are not just two sides of the same coin, they are just two coins in the same strong box.  They're related in that both issues are in this same box (war in Iraq), but realizing that one is a silver dollar and the other is fools gold should not be a quantum leap of recognition!
[/quote]
You are relying on emotional agument too.

Part1:
-He didn't send them there to die, he could've just drowned them in the Atlantic if that's all he wanted done.  He sent them there to accomplish an objective.
-"Supporting the troops" means just that, nothing hidden behind.  It isn't some weird agenda saying liberals are queer & George Bush is God, it just means that our country loves our troops & would like to see them come home & do good.
-Time & time again it has been explained why we can't pull out, don't be that blind that you can't see why we have to stay there longer

Part2:
I'm super confused now.  Do you support our troops & not policy, do you not support anything, do you need some change?...

[quote]He sent them there to accomplish an objective.[/quote]
An objective that upon further review was based on false intelligence, so once that is realized it is time to send the troops home.

[quote]it just means that our country loves our troops & would like to see them come home & do good.[/quote]

I don't want to see anything bad happening to the soliders that protect my life by risking their own.  However, at this point it seems like these honorable men are dying in vain.  The reason they are in a forgein country risking their lives day after day has been proven to be unfounded, so I support them in the sense that they should be home getting ready for christmas dinner with their family.

[quote]Time & time again it has been explained why we can't pull out, don't be that blind that you can't see why we have to stay there longer[/quote]
Mind sharing that reason with me.  I have heard a few reasons and they all suck.

Please could one of the right-wing posters substantively define what it means to "support our troops"?

This sentence is so rigged it hurts:
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13498.msg137462#msg137462 date=1134510685]
they answered the call and rose to defend our great nation.
[/quote]

there are 3 separate things within that short sentence part that are meant to elicit emotional response, but that have no substance ("answered the call!" "rose to defend!" "our great nation!").  They are meaningless in an argument, other than to toy with people's emotions.  That's not something that should be done in a debate, because people who are thinking about it realize that those types of words lack substance. 

Those are great examples of the kinds of phrases that politicians use to manipulate people who don't think for themselves. 

Here here.

I find it disturbing that Grok writes that he is going to educate us yet his education is bias and full of emotion. Example being that he points the finger and all the blame on one man where that man was only allowed to do what the majority of the people in the United States told him to do, that is how our government works.

Grok writes that the President of the United States sent us to war where in fact the President of the United States has no such power without the authority of the Senate.

The senators that represent you voted to send the troops to Iraq 77-23. Their votes represented the majority of the people who wanted our government to wage war on Iraq.

Recently we had a vote in the House for a nonbinding resolution calling for an immediate troop withdrawal, that resolution failed 403-3.


You are not we; the majority of the people in this country support the war effort in Iraq and support our troops that support the war effort.


Grok: I am no longer in the Army my PCS date was 05 January 2005, almost a year since I've been a free man.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137512#msg137512 date=1134517816]
The senators that represent you voted to send the troops to Iraq 77-23. Their votes represented the majority of the people who wanted our government to wage war on Iraq.
[/quote]

It's unfortunate that people are so easily influenced by lies.  Well before you went to war, people here (in Canada) were talking about how bogus it was.  It was well known that what your citizens were being told (about WMD, Terrorists in Iraq, etc) were blatent lies.  And look where we are now?  They're acting surprised that attacking Iraq was a mistake!  Maybe your citizens should have been thinking of that instead of vandalizing Canadian cars (because Canada refused to go to a war based on lies)?

Grok, I fully understand your argument, as do I understand what policy and emotions are. I fullheartedly agree with the implemented policy, and I myself would be willing to die for it. The path of a military man isn't what I want for myself, and I don't feel as if it'd be best suited for me, but it has crossed my mind (specifically the Air Force) many many times and I hold those who hold that sort of position in high regard. I'm totally for the preserving (or creating) of Democracy in the world, and I beleive Iraq is a great place that needs it done. So, yes, I think that in order to "support our troops" you should, even if you don't agree with what they're doing, respect what they're doing. There are far too many left-wing organizations (freerepublic for one) that are saying (and I read an entire thing on this) basically "forget the troops, let them die" (and the death part isn't an exaggeration) and I can't stand that kind of talk. Many (not all) of our troops agree with the cause too, why do you think the Republican party was worried when there was speculation that the military votes wouldn't get back in time for the election last year? And why do you think the soldiers interviewed are always saying how they feel for the cause and how they like helping the children and all of that?

I personally feel it is blantantly disrespectful to go out like people do and call our Commander in Chief a murderer, call our troops murders, and just generally disrespect them in protests by stomping on/burning the American flag, etc. Especially since it's our men that are dying and their parents that are watching them. It literally sickens me that people that my countrymen can basically degrade those that keep them free and protect the American values. Because frankly, I don't think most of these outspoken liberal nuts could survive in some other countries, and they're fortunate they live where they do. One big example that just popped into my mind is Pre-War Iraq.

There's just one point I'm curious about:

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13498.msg137517#msg137517 date=1134518592]
And why do you think the soldiers interviewed are always saying how they feel for the cause and how they like helping the children and all of that?
[/quote]

Who is interviewing them?  Is it a random sample, or are they only playing interviews which will further their agenda?  Just curious where you get these facts from, because, traditionally, interviewing people is a very bad way of gleaning information about what's going on. 

[quote author=iago link=topic=13498.msg137522#msg137522 date=1134518965]
There's just one point I'm curious about:

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13498.msg137517#msg137517 date=1134518592]
And why do you think the soldiers interviewed are always saying how they feel for the cause and how they like helping the children and all of that?
[/quote]

Who is interviewing them? Is it a random sample, or are they only playing interviews which will further their agenda? Just curious where you get these facts from, because, traditionally, interviewing people is a very bad way of gleaning information about what's going on.
[/quote]

You know, on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13498.msg137525#msg137525 date=1134519312]
[quote author=iago link=topic=13498.msg137522#msg137522 date=1134518965]
There's just one point I'm curious about:

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13498.msg137517#msg137517 date=1134518592]
And why do you think the soldiers interviewed are always saying how they feel for the cause and how they like helping the children and all of that?
[/quote]

Who is interviewing them? Is it a random sample, or are they only playing interviews which will further their agenda? Just curious where you get these facts from, because, traditionally, interviewing people is a very bad way of gleaning information about what's going on.
[/quote]

You know, on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc.
[/quote]

I can't say I trust American (or Canadian) news sources.. international ones for the win :)

[quote author=iago link=topic=13498.msg137522#msg137522 date=1134518965]
There's just one point I'm curious about:

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13498.msg137517#msg137517 date=1134518592]
And why do you think the soldiers interviewed are always saying how they feel for the cause and how they like helping the children and all of that?
[/quote]

Who is interviewing them?  Is it a random sample, or are they only playing interviews which will further their agenda?  Just curious where you get these facts from, because, traditionally, interviewing people is a very bad way of gleaning information about what's going on. 
[/quote]

I served in the Army during the war in Iraq in a battalion that has over 1,000 infantry soldiers. They truly believe that what they are doing is the right thing and that they are for the war in Iraq. The unit that I served with is currently in Iraq and I get some e-mails from a few of my friends from Iraq that they support the war and believe in what they are doing.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137529#msg137529 date=1134520195]
This is a perfect example of the double standard. When I use personal attacks everyone shits a brick. When someone else uses a personal attack that has the same point of view as you I get a "stop whining" comment.

There is no way to have a good political discussion on these forums when it's run by someone who is bias.
[/quote]
I was saying to you exactly what you insulted me for. 

Plus, you still haven't given a better definition. 

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137531#msg137531 date=1134520560]
I served in the Army during the war in Iraq in a battalion that has over 1,000 infantry soldiers. They truly believe that what they are doing is the right thing and that they are for the war in Iraq. The unit that I served with is currently in Iraq and I get some e-mails from a few of my friends from Iraq that they support the war and believe in what they are doing.
[/quote]
That's a much better source, thanks for providing it.  I have nothing more to say on how the soldiers themselves feel.

[quote author=iago link=topic=13498.msg137513#msg137513 date=1134518059]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137512#msg137512 date=1134517816]
The senators that represent you voted to send the troops to Iraq 77-23. Their votes represented the majority of the people who wanted our government to wage war on Iraq.
[/quote]

It's unfortunate that people are so easily influenced by lies.  Well before you went to war, people here (in Canada) were talking about how bogus it was.  It was well known that what your citizens were being told (about WMD, Terrorists in Iraq, etc) were blatent lies.  And look where we are now?  They're acting surprised that attacking Iraq was a mistake!  Maybe your citizens should have been thinking of that instead of vandalizing Canadian cars (because Canada refused to go to a war based on lies)?
[/quote]

Your comment has no merit because you ignored the rest of my post, specifically the part where I mention that we recently (Nov. 19, 2005) had a vote in the House for a nonbinding resolution calling for an immediate troop withdrawal and that resolution failed 403-3.

The majority voted for the troops to remain in Iraq. If the majority believed it was a mistake they would have voted to pull out.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137531#msg137531 date=1134520560]
I get some e-mails from a few of my friends from Iraq that they support the war and believe in what they are doing.
[/quote]

I'm sure they, and many others, do. I'm equally sure that many don't. Without a properly conducted poll, we really can't say. I agree that interviews are a fairly useless way to gauge prevailing opinion.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13498.msg137517#msg137517 date=1134518592]
So, yes, I think that in order to "support our troops" you should, even if you don't agree with what they're doing, respect what they're doing.
[/quote]

I mostly agree with that. I agree that our servicemen deserve respect for their willingness to serve, but I don't agree with their actions in Iraq. I think that these things are quite distinct from each other. My dislike of their actions in Iraq doesn't mean that I disrespect them -- they are soldiers, and their actions are generally not their responsibility, from a policy perspective.

I agree that to have some respect for servicemen is important, and from that perspective, I do 'support' them. I do not agree that said respect obligates one to approve of their actions.


[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13498.msg137517#msg137517 date=1134518592]
There are far too many left-wing organizations ... that are saying ... "forget the troops, let them die" ...
[/quote]

That's clearly reprehensible, and those people are clearly on the extreme fringe of the left wing. I remind you that the extreme right wing is equally as disgraceful. To lump extremists in with normal people and label them all wrong isn't really a valid argument.


[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13498.msg137517#msg137517 date=1134518592]
I personally feel it is blantantly disrespectful to go out like people do and call our Commander in Chief a murderer ...
[/quote]

I disagree with your implication that our leaders automatically deserve our respect. I do not respect George W. Bush. I do not respect Tony Blair. I think their actions in Iraq are deplorable. I would not call them murderers, but I would call them people who have instigated a chain of events that has lead to a lot of loss of life for no good reason. I think they are wholly deserving our reproach.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137534#msg137534 date=1134521407]
[quote author=iago link=topic=13498.msg137513#msg137513 date=1134518059]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137512#msg137512 date=1134517816]
The senators that represent you voted to send the troops to Iraq 77-23. Their votes represented the majority of the people who wanted our government to wage war on Iraq.
[/quote]

It's unfortunate that people are so easily influenced by lies.  Well before you went to war, people here (in Canada) were talking about how bogus it was.  It was well known that what your citizens were being told (about WMD, Terrorists in Iraq, etc) were blatent lies.  And look where we are now?  They're acting surprised that attacking Iraq was a mistake!  Maybe your citizens should have been thinking of that instead of vandalizing Canadian cars (because Canada refused to go to a war based on lies)?
[/quote]

Your comment has no merit because you ignored the rest of my post, specifically the part where I mention that we recently (Nov. 19, 2005) had a vote in the House for a nonbinding resolution calling for an immediate troop withdrawal and that resolution failed 403-3.

The majority voted for the troops to remain in Iraq. If the majority believed it was a mistake they would have voted to pull out.
[/quote]

Didn't I read somewhere that that vote set up to fail?

In any case, I don't support withdrawing now.  I thought going into the war was a dumb idea, and it was.  But now that you've committed to it, you're stuck running another country until it's ready to be self-governed (how long do we figure that'll take? ever?)

That vote was started by the leading democrat that is against the war, IIRC.
Also, that vote just shows HOW NO ONE believes that we can leave now & let that country fall further apart from where it was before we went in.  Iraq is well on its way to being a full functiong country that doesn't opress & slaughter its own citizens

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13498.msg137543#msg137543 date=1134524241]
That vote was started by the leading democrat that is against the war, IIRC.
Also, that vote just shows HOW NO ONE believes that we can leave now & let that country fall further apart from where it was before we went in.  Iraq is well on its way to being a full functiong country that doesn't opress & slaughter its own citizens
[/quote]

I agree that leaving the country right now will make things worse than you already have by going there in the first place. 

I disagree that they will ever be a full functioning country, but time will tell. 

Couldn't it be said that America also oppresses and "slaughters" its own citizens?  I realize those are rigged terms that you'd only apply to other countries, but from this side of the border the Death Penalty looks a lot like slaughter to me.  And don't get me started on oppression in the western world, again :P

[quote author=iago link=topic=13498.msg137542#msg137542 date=1134523095]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137534#msg137534 date=1134521407]
[quote author=iago link=topic=13498.msg137513#msg137513 date=1134518059]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137512#msg137512 date=1134517816]
The senators that represent you voted to send the troops to Iraq 77-23. Their votes represented the majority of the people who wanted our government to wage war on Iraq.
[/quote]

It's unfortunate that people are so easily influenced by lies.  Well before you went to war, people here (in Canada) were talking about how bogus it was.  It was well known that what your citizens were being told (about WMD, Terrorists in Iraq, etc) were blatent lies.  And look where we are now?  They're acting surprised that attacking Iraq was a mistake!  Maybe your citizens should have been thinking of that instead of vandalizing Canadian cars (because Canada refused to go to a war based on lies)?
[/quote]

Your comment has no merit because you ignored the rest of my post, specifically the part where I mention that we recently (Nov. 19, 2005) had a vote in the House for a nonbinding resolution calling for an immediate troop withdrawal and that resolution failed 403-3.

The majority voted for the troops to remain in Iraq. If the majority believed it was a mistake they would have voted to pull out.
[/quote]

Didn't I read somewhere that that vote set up to fail?

In any case, I don't support withdrawing now.  I thought going into the war was a dumb idea, and it was.  But now that you've committed to it, you're stuck running another country until it's ready to be self-governed (how long do we figure that'll take? ever?)
[/quote]

How can you set up a vote to fail? Everyone just knew that the politicians that scream about how we should pull out would not put their vote where their mouth is besides those 3.

How can you say that you do not support the war and that the United States should not be there but say that you are for the continuation of the occupancy of Iraq by the United States? If you believe that it's good for the Iraqis to have the United States there then you are for the war!

It's a fact that the majority of Iraqis are much better off now then when Sadam ruled the country and before the United States occupation. I have provided evidence of this a few times before but here it is again...

Here is an excerpt from this article:

Average household incomes have soared by 60 percent in the last 20 months (to $263 a month), 70 percent of Iraqis rate their own economic situation positively, and consumer goods are sweeping the country. In early 2004, 6 percent of Iraqi households had cell phones; now it's 62 percent. Ownership of satellite dishes has nearly tripled, and many more families now own air conditioners (58 percent, up from 44 percent), cars, washing machines and kitchen appliances.

You don't have to agree with me if you want to keep contradicting yourself and ignoring the facts.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137573#msg137573 date=1134532525]
How can you set up a vote to fail? Everyone just knew that the politicians that scream about how we should pull out would not put their vote where their mouth is besides those 3.
[/quote]

Anyway, it's easy to make a vote fail, by making a ridiculous vote that nobody with common sense would vote for.  I thought I read that this vote was like that, I could be wrong.  I have no evidence or sources to cite on it, so let's forget that topic, unless somebody has a source on it. 

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137573#msg137573 date=1134532525]
How can you say that you do not support the war and that the United States should not be there but say that you are for the continuation of the occupancy of Iraq by the United States? If you believe that it's good for the Iraqis to have the United States there then you are for the war!
[/quote]
Easily.  It's like saying that you shouldn't impregnate a girl when you're 16, but if you do, you'd better bring up the child.  I didn't support the kid knocking up the chick, but once it's done he can't just abandon the responsibility he's made for himself.  It's a similar situation, in my eyes. 

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137573#msg137573 date=1134532525]
It's a fact that the majority of Iraqis are much better off now then when Sadam ruled the country and before the United States occupation. I have provided evidence of this a few times before but here it is again...

Here is an excerpt from this article:

Average household incomes have soared by 60 percent in the last 20 months (to $263 a month), 70 percent of Iraqis rate their own economic situation positively, and consumer goods are sweeping the country. In early 2004, 6 percent of Iraqi households had cell phones; now it's 62 percent. Ownership of satellite dishes has nearly tripled, and many more families now own air conditioners (58 percent, up from 44 percent), cars, washing machines and kitchen appliances.

You don't have to agree with me if you want to keep contradicting yourself and ignoring the facts.
[/quote]
That's assuming that more consumer goods and better economics indicates that the country is "better".  I think that the US could be better with less consumer goods and more culture, which is what you've robbed of Iraq. 

[quote author=iago link=topic=13498.msg137581#msg137581 date=1134537845]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137573#msg137573 date=1134532525]
How can you set up a vote to fail? Everyone just knew that the politicians that scream about how we should pull out would not put their vote where their mouth is besides those 3.
[/quote]
Listen, birdbrain... (kidding).

Anyway, it's easy to make a vote fail, by making a ridiculous vote that nobody with common sense would vote for. I thought I read that this vote was like that, I could be wrong. I have no evidence or sources to cite on it, so let's forget that topic, unless somebody has a source on it. [/quote]

I think there were two bills up a few days apart, and one of them had something in end that was odd or something. But, really, there is this whole power the Senate has that allows the ammending of a bill before it goes into voting procedure and all...

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13498.msg137543#msg137543 date=1134524241]
That vote was started by the leading democrat that is against the war, IIRC.
Also, that vote just shows HOW NO ONE believes that we can leave now & let that country fall further apart from where it was before we went in.
[/quote]

Incorrect. The numbers 403-3, means SOME ONE believes you can leave now. Three someones.

And the vote was rigged, from being about leaving Iraq to being about leaving it *right now*. If the US was to leave Iraq right now, the US should first pay damages, rebuild everything broken, reequip the Iraqi military, etc. Going in, tearing stuff down and then leaving is much worse than not going in at all.

Correct.  The vote was about leaving *right now* and Invert you even knew this.  In your posts here you make the distinction between "leaving right now" and just "leaving" when challenging others.  Apparently you think that people were fooled by the vote.

Had the vote been something like "vote for/against a congressional plan for an orderly controlled pull out with a relatively set time table keyed to specific milestones as enumerated within the plan", the vote would have passed.  But asking for an immediate vote on "leave right now" is incredibly irresponsible and rigged.

The death penalty is not a slaughter of jack shit & you know it!  They humanely inject people & they fall asleep to their death, its simple & clean.  Saddam Hussein slaughter with toxic gasses that made them suffer, they just blatantly KILLED people by physical violent means, that's comparing apple & oranges & you know it.


So nobody with common sense wants to leave Iraq then?...hmm, thanks for pointing that out.

More goods = better economy = better standard of living (running water, FREEDOM!)


Adron, what the fuck do you think we're doing overthere?  Everything is being rebuilt, including their the people's basic freedoms.


Of course a vote to leave (in an indefinite time period) would pass, it would pass by everyone I'd be willing to bet.  But you have the far leftists saying to bring the troops home now, so, Mr. Murtha?(the D. from back east) said lets bring them home now.
According to iago that shows incompetence, that guy should be removed from office.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13498.msg137624#msg137624 date=1134583535]
The death penalty is not a slaughter of jack shit & you know it!  They humanely inject people & they fall asleep to their death, its simple & clean.
[/quote]

I wouldn't say you "fall asleep to your death."
Actually, they use three chemicals:
a short acting anesthesia,  a muscle paralizing agent, and finally potassium chloride, which stops the heart.  Often the anesthesia wears off before the subject is dead, leaving them  paralyzed and in excruciating pain, but unable to express this because of the paralizing agent. In addition, some people seem to have additional reactions to the chemicals used, such as extreme convulsions.

But this is for another thread.

ooh, hmm, not fun, but still I'd bet its better than walking around & having that happen minus the anesthetic

you're still murdering your own citizens, I don't care how humain the way they do it is. 

Craz3d, I don't know how you can say that's a bad thing, I have it on record that you support both torturing them and you support nuking the middle east into oblivion (I'll find quotes of both if you want), then you go on to use the fact that they say the same thing against them.  That's a very hypocritical standpoint. 

Those people being executed are being punished

Who says the same thing against what?

[quote author=iago link=topic=13498.msg137581#msg137581 date=1134537845]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137573#msg137573 date=1134532525]
How can you set up a vote to fail? Everyone just knew that the politicians that scream about how we should pull out would not put their vote where their mouth is besides those 3.
[/quote]

Anyway, it's easy to make a vote fail, by making a ridiculous vote that nobody with common sense would vote for.  I thought I read that this vote was like that, I could be wrong.  I have no evidence or sources to cite on it, so let's forget that topic, unless somebody has a source on it. 

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137573#msg137573 date=1134532525]
How can you say that you do not support the war and that the United States should not be there but say that you are for the continuation of the occupancy of Iraq by the United States? If you believe that it's good for the Iraqis to have the United States there then you are for the war!
[/quote]
Easily.  It's like saying that you shouldn't impregnate a girl when you're 16, but if you do, you'd better bring up the child.  I didn't support the kid knocking up the chick, but once it's done he can't just abandon the responsibility he's made for himself.  It's a similar situation, in my eyes. 

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137573#msg137573 date=1134532525]
It's a fact that the majority of Iraqis are much better off now then when Sadam ruled the country and before the United States occupation. I have provided evidence of this a few times before but here it is again...

Here is an excerpt from this article:

Average household incomes have soared by 60 percent in the last 20 months (to $263 a month), 70 percent of Iraqis rate their own economic situation positively, and consumer goods are sweeping the country. In early 2004, 6 percent of Iraqi households had cell phones; now it's 62 percent. Ownership of satellite dishes has nearly tripled, and many more families now own air conditioners (58 percent, up from 44 percent), cars, washing machines and kitchen appliances.

You don't have to agree with me if you want to keep contradicting yourself and ignoring the facts.
[/quote]
That's assuming that more consumer goods and better economics indicates that the country is "better".  I think that the US could be better with less consumer goods and more culture, which is what you've robbed of Iraq. 

[/quote]

I don't see how you can call that vote ridiculous when we have one group of politicians calling for immediate withdraw and when the vote is put right in front of them only 3 out of hundreds vote for an immediate withdraw.

Your analogy is not completely accurate since the factor of your analogy is age implying that it was bad for the United States to initially invade when the majority of the people agreed with the initial invasion. My point is in your country and my country the majority of the people believed that it's not ok for a 16 year old boy to impregnate a girl. If the majority of people in my country and your country believed that it was okay for a 16 year old boy to impregnate a girl then your analogy would work just fine and your argument would fail.

Also when the majority of Iraqis (A poll conducted Oct. 8 to Nov. 22, 2005, in person, in Arabic and Kurdish, among a random national sample of 1,711 Iraqis age 15 and up by Oxford Research International) say that their life is better now then it was under Sadams regime is an indication that the country as a whole is doing better according to Iraqis.

You say that we robbed Iraq of culture without any proof behind your statement, not very convincing of you.

Let me point this out to you, the people of the United States wanted this to happen to Iraq before President G. W. Bush was even in office. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was passed in the House and Senate and signed into law by the then United States President Bill Clinton on October 31, 1998. Its stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." And the Congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Here is the link to Public Law 105-338: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ338.105

[quote author=Grok link=topic=13498.msg137593#msg137593 date=1134566249]
Correct.  The vote was about leaving *right now* and Invert you even knew this.  In your posts here you make the distinction between "leaving right now" and just "leaving" when challenging others.  Apparently you think that people were fooled by the vote.

Had the vote been something like "vote for/against a congressional plan for an orderly controlled pull out with a relatively set time table keyed to specific milestones as enumerated within the plan", the vote would have passed.  But asking for an immediate vote on "leave right now" is incredibly irresponsible and rigged.
[/quote]

Adron: The vote was not "rigged". You can't just bring up a random vote in the House or Representatives. The vote was brought on by a democratic lawmaker's call for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. Everyone knew what the vote was going to be for and everyone knew what they were voting for.

You assume that the United States has done more damage in Iraq than good without any proof of that you have no argument. Just like I can say that the Iraqis should repay us for all the good we have done for them because the good outweighs the bad.

Grok: In my original post about that (it does not sound like you went back and read it) I specifically stated that the vote was for an "immediate troop withdrawal", what can be confusing about that? My point was that the democratic lawmakers made a big stink about having our troops in Iraq and wanted them out immediately but when it was time to vote only 3 of them put their vote where their political point of view was. I believe that most of them did not want to vote yes was because they did not want to leave a mark in their records for their failed policies for future elections.

I am all for the eventual withdraw of troops from Iraq.

Other then that all you are doing is throwing what ifs. What if this, what if that will not prove any point of yours.

Repay what damages? Have you not noticed that we're exponentially throwing money at that country trying to mondernize and rebuild it? Trying to secure it? Trying to train and equip the military and police forces, trying to keep the citizens safe. What money do we owe them?

Keep rebuilding and eventually you may not owe them. Other than that, all the property destroyed and all the people killed during your invasion of Iraq is what you owe them.

And yes, the vote was rigged. The text as it was laid out to vote on was dumb, while the suggestion from the democrat was not.

Well, since we've dumped more money into Iraq & its infrastructure & police & military & government than it was EVER worth before, I think we should leave.

Prove that the vote was rigged.
A democrat wrote it proposing to remove the troops from Iraq now, ooh, that sounds suspicious & shady, it must be the work on an evil conservative group.

Looks to me you'verun out of things to complain about so just sit there like your country.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13498.msg137671#msg137671 date=1134598477]
Well, since we've dumped more money into Iraq & its infrastructure & police & military & government than it was EVER worth before, I think we should leave.
[/quote]

Human lives are worth a lot. You may have to pay more.


[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13498.msg137671#msg137671 date=1134598477]
Prove that the vote was rigged.
A democrat wrote it proposing to remove the troops from Iraq now, ooh, that sounds suspicious & shady, it must be the work on an evil conservative group.

Looks to me you'verun out of things to complain about so just sit there like your country.
[/quote]

[quote]
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House late Friday overwhelmingly rejected calls for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq, a vote engineered by the Republicans that was intended to fail.
[/quote]

A vote engineered by republicans......

[quote]
Murtha has proposed his own resolution that would force the president to withdraw the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." It would establish a quick-reaction force and a nearby presence of Marines in the region. It also said the U.S. must pursue stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

The Republican alternative simply said: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."
[/quote]



And we, as a country, own. We follow the Kyoto agreement, unlike your environment-marauding country. We pay our bills, unlike your cheapskate country. So I think I will keep complaining at you and your country. It will likely never actually make you improve, but it is better than just doing nothing.

Given that many of the Iraqi deaths are the fault of insurgents, maybe that debt should be passed along to them, partially of course.

I believe if we stopped giving out foriegn aid & forgiving other countries debs we could be pretty close to all paid up, but then the entire economy of the world would fall to pieces.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137643#msg137643 date=1134588032]
I don't see how you can call that vote ridiculous when we have one group of politicians calling for immediate withdraw and when the vote is put right in front of them only 3 out of hundreds vote for an immediate withdraw.
[/quote]
See Grok and Adron's statements, I want no more part in the "rigged vote" idea.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137643#msg137643 date=1134588032]
Your analogy is not completely accurate since the factor of your analogy is age implying that it was bad for the United States to initially invade when the majority of the people agreed with the initial invasion. My point is in your country and my country the majority of the people believed that it's not ok for a 16 year old boy to impregnate a girl. If the majority of people in my country and your country believed that it was okay for a 16 year old boy to impregnate a girl then your analogy would work just fine and your argument would fail.
[/quote]
That analogy is apt! APT!!! (-Simpsons)
You've argued yourself in a circle, though.  You were arguing that the war was ok because Iraq is better off now (the vote and statistics you keep bringing up).  However, the reasons for initially going to war were totally fraudulent (WMD, etc.).  So the reasons for going to war weren't true, and maybe the boy who knocked up the girl also thought it was a good idea because of lies he's been told. 

In any case, the analogy has nothing to do with the initial invasion, the fact is that, whether or not I or anybody else supports it, it happened.  And now they have the responsibility to carry through, and fix anything they've broken. 

Also when the majority of Iraqis (A poll conducted Oct. 8 to Nov. 22, 2005, in person, in Arabic and Kurdish, among a random national sample [quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137643#msg137643 date=1134588032]
of 1,711 Iraqis age 15 and up by Oxford Research International) say that their life is better now then it was under Sadams regime is an indication that the country as a whole is doing better according to Iraqis.
[/quote]
I would worry about how that poll was conducted.  Did they go out into the streets in non-American controlled areas, where the guys are trying to kill Americans, and poll them?  Or did they stay in the American part of the city, where everybody is ready to kill everybody else for saying the wrong thing, and ask people around there?  I'd be willing to bet that the person conducting the poll didn't put himself into jeopardy by finding people who hate Americans to ask.  I very much doubt that the poll says anything useful. 

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137643#msg137643 date=1134588032]
You say that we robbed Iraq of culture without any proof behind your statement, not very convincing of you.
[/quote]
You're correct, it wasn't an appropriate thing to say.  I have no proof of it, but it just seems logical that an ancient country (like it was) compared to an occupied country (like it is) would just naturally have less culture.  But I have no evidence to back it up. 

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137643#msg137643 date=1134588032]
Let me point this out to you, the people of the United States wanted this to happen to Iraq before President G. W. Bush was even in office. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was passed in the House and Senate and signed into law by the then United States President Bill Clinton on October 31, 1998. Its stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." And the Congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Here is the link to Public Law 105-338: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ338.105
[/quote]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there is a big difference between "support[ing] a transition to democracy" and "going to war"?  In any case, even if that's what they meant, the fact that it was proposed by somebody other than Bush makes no difference.  I'm not Republican or Democrat, I hate all politicians equally.  The fact is that the US attacked Iraq based on a fraudulent premise.  If they had gone into it saying what that says (" the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime"), I would have been much more supportive of the war.  The major problem I have is the lies. 

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13498.msg137667#msg137667 date=1134598003]
Keep rebuilding and eventually you may not owe them. Other than that, all the property destroyed and all the people killed during your invasion of Iraq is what you owe them.

And yes, the vote was rigged. The text as it was laid out to vote on was dumb, while the suggestion from the democrat was not.
[/quote]

The vote was not rigged. You are right the vote was engineered by the republicans but was brought on by the democratic lawmakers call for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. It was engineered by the republicans to point out that those democratic lawmakers that are calling for an immediate withdraw of the troops will not put their vote where their mouth is. There were more than 3 democrats that called for an immediate withdraw.


By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 18, 2005; Page A01

The top House Democrat on military spending matters stunned colleagues yesterday by calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, while many congressional Democrats reacted defiantly to President Bush's latest attack on his critics.



You said that the suggestion from the democrats was not dumb which was for an immediate pullout but above that statement you are all for rebuilding Iraq. How can the United States rebuild Iraq if we pull our troops out now? You are contradicting yourself.

A country that sits there idly and ignores everything is as bad as the enemy. In WW2 Sweden did the same thing, it even allowed the Nazis to transport Jews using Sweden's railroad system to concentration camps.

[quote author=iago link=topic=13498.msg137681#msg137681 date=1134600596]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137643#msg137643 date=1134588032]
I don't see how you can call that vote ridiculous when we have one group of politicians calling for immediate withdraw and when the vote is put right in front of them only 3 out of hundreds vote for an immediate withdraw.
[/quote]
See Grok and Adron's statements, I want no more part in the "rigged vote" idea.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137643#msg137643 date=1134588032]
Your analogy is not completely accurate since the factor of your analogy is age implying that it was bad for the United States to initially invade when the majority of the people agreed with the initial invasion. My point is in your country and my country the majority of the people believed that it's not ok for a 16 year old boy to impregnate a girl. If the majority of people in my country and your country believed that it was okay for a 16 year old boy to impregnate a girl then your analogy would work just fine and your argument would fail.
[/quote]
That analogy is apt! APT!!! (-Simpsons)
You've argued yourself in a circle, though.  You were arguing that the war was ok because Iraq is better off now (the vote and statistics you keep bringing up).  However, the reasons for initially going to war were totally fraudulent (WMD, etc.).  So the reasons for going to war weren't true, and maybe the boy who knocked up the girl also thought it was a good idea because of lies he's been told. 

In any case, the analogy has nothing to do with the initial invasion, the fact is that, whether or not I or anybody else supports it, it happened.  And now they have the responsibility to carry through, and fix anything they've broken. 

Also when the majority of Iraqis (A poll conducted Oct. 8 to Nov. 22, 2005, in person, in Arabic and Kurdish, among a random national sample [quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137643#msg137643 date=1134588032]
of 1,711 Iraqis age 15 and up by Oxford Research International) say that their life is better now then it was under Sadams regime is an indication that the country as a whole is doing better according to Iraqis.
[/quote]
I would worry about how that poll was conducted.  Did they go out into the streets in non-American controlled areas, where the guys are trying to kill Americans, and poll them?  Or did they stay in the American part of the city, where everybody is ready to kill everybody else for saying the wrong thing, and ask people around there?  I'd be willing to bet that the person conducting the poll didn't put himself into jeopardy by finding people who hate Americans to ask.  I very much doubt that the poll says anything useful. 

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137643#msg137643 date=1134588032]
You say that we robbed Iraq of culture without any proof behind your statement, not very convincing of you.
[/quote]
You're correct, it wasn't an appropriate thing to say.  I have no proof of it, but it just seems logical that an ancient country (like it was) compared to an occupied country (like it is) would just naturally have less culture.  But I have no evidence to back it up. 

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137643#msg137643 date=1134588032]
Let me point this out to you, the people of the United States wanted this to happen to Iraq before President G. W. Bush was even in office. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was passed in the House and Senate and signed into law by the then United States President Bill Clinton on October 31, 1998. Its stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." And the Congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Here is the link to Public Law 105-338: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ338.105
[/quote]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there is a big difference between "support[ing] a transition to democracy" and "going to war"?  In any case, even if that's what they meant, the fact that it was proposed by somebody other than Bush makes no difference.  I'm not Republican or Democrat, I hate all politicians equally.  The fact is that the US attacked Iraq based on a fraudulent premise.  If they had gone into it saying what that says (" the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime"), I would have been much more supportive of the war.  The major problem I have is the lies. 
[/quote]

You accuse me of arguing myself in circles yet you fail to discredit my argument. Just by saying that I'm wrong will not discredit anything I have said. The initial reason for going to war was not fraudulent or lies but poor intelligence that was provided by the CIA and other intelligence organizations.

You have no proof that it was fraudulent or that the information was known to be false at the time the decision to go to war was made. I am still wondering if there were no weapons of mass destruction why did Sadam refuse to let the U.N. inspectors into Iraq and when he did they were restricted from doing their job.

After the discovery that there were no weapons of mass destruction currently in the country (they might have been moved before the invasion) the United States made its secondary mission its primary which was to liberate Iraq and introduce democracy.

The poll that I mentioned was done by a group that has no connection to the United States government. It was done by the Oxford Research International, in person, on a random national sample of Iraqis. If you go out and find people who hate Americans like you suggested it would defeat a purpose of a random poll and then it would be worthless and not accurate. Who is to say that the people they did the poll on did not hate Americans?

There is a difference between supporting a transition to democracy and going to war. The stated purpose of that law was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq."

With the war in Iraq you can say that we have established a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137687#msg137687 date=1134602005]
A country that sits there idly and ignores everything is as bad as the enemy.
[/quote]

A country that destroys is worse than one that sits idly.

We've spent billions on repairing the damage we've wrought: We're also one of the countries who helped create the Kyoto agreement. I've lost any respect I've had for you, Adron: The rest of your statement is just blatant bullshit.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13498.msg137697#msg137697 date=1134605143]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137687#msg137687 date=1134602005]
A country that sits there idly and ignores everything is as bad as the enemy.
[/quote]

A country that destroys is worse than one that sits idly.
[/quote]

There must be the destruction of bad before there can be creation of good in its place. I still think sitting idly and not doing anything is dishonorable.

[quote author=Topaz link=topic=13498.msg137699#msg137699 date=1134605584]
We've spent billions on repairing the damage we've wrought: We're also one of the countries who helped create the Kyoto agreement. I've lost any respect I've had for you, Adron: The rest of your statement is just blatant bullshit.
[/quote]

While others ratified the Kyoto agreement, the US did not. Go stand in a corner.

Seems as though you may be improving a bit now, some states even agreeing to limit greenhouse gases. Still far from just doing what should have been done years ago.


And you still do not owe up to your debts. Cheap. [url]http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/tables/core/usvtotalindex.htm[/url]


And you still give relatively less to those in need than other countries. Cheap.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137701#msg137701 date=1134606160]
There must be the destruction of bad before there can be creation of good in its place. I still think sitting idly and not doing anything is dishonorable.
[/quote]

Well, then the demand that you build up good applies. Merely destroying is way worse than doing nothing. And you should be clear on your intentions, not shroud them in talk of mass destruction.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137701#msg137701 date=1134606160]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=13498.msg137697#msg137697 date=1134605143]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=13498.msg137687#msg137687 date=1134602005]
A country that sits there idly and ignores everything is as bad as the enemy.
[/quote]

A country that destroys is worse than one that sits idly.
[/quote]

There must be the destruction of bad before there can be creation of good in its place. I still think sitting idly and not doing anything is dishonorable.
[/quote]
So what is destroying yourself ranked @?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13498.msg137706#msg137706 date=1134606645]
So what is destroying yourself ranked @?
[/quote]

Well, did you ever see the end of T2? ;)

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13498.msg137707#msg137707 date=1134606726]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13498.msg137706#msg137706 date=1134606645]
So what is destroying yourself ranked @?
[/quote]

Well, did you ever see the end of T2? ;)
[/quote]Haven't seen it :(

Maybe we should leave and just let them figure it out for themselves. Maybe the great nation of Canada or Sweden will jump in and help them, since obviously the US doesn't know how to start a country from scratch or anything.

I'll try and define what SUPPORT OUR TROOPS means to me.

It means sitting in the front row at the church crying through the funeral of my best friend who was killed in Iraq.  Wishing him on to a better place.

He did not get "thrown" into this war by a "fascist" government as most of you like to call it.

He went of his own accord, to fight for the country he loves.

How dare YOU tell me not to support our troops.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13498.msg137704#msg137704 date=1134606498]
[quote author=Topaz link=topic=13498.msg137699#msg137699 date=1134605584]
We've spent billions on repairing the damage we've wrought: We're also one of the countries who helped create the Kyoto agreement. I've lost any respect I've had for you, Adron: The rest of your statement is just blatant bullshit.
[/quote]

While others ratified the Kyoto agreement, the US did not. Go stand in a corner.

Seems as though you may be improving a bit now, some states even agreeing to limit greenhouse gases. Still far from just doing what should have been done years ago.


And you still do not owe up to your debts. Cheap. [url]http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/tables/core/usvtotalindex.htm[/url]


And you still give relatively less to those in need than other countries. Cheap.
[/quote]

It's a bit hard to force corporations to take losses of nearly three million dollars in order to satisfy the government. We ARE capitalist, and therefore it takes a while to force changes upon the people. Own up to our debts? We've gone into debt by providing foreign aid, providing defenses to countries, and sending shit around the world to protect you guys. We're a fucking superpower; there are going to be backdrops, its not like we can help EVERYONE. Remember those tsunamis near/around India and the pacific rim? We've contributed billions to help those people, and not just the government. Shut up.

[quote author=DarkMinion link=topic=13498.msg137741#msg137741 date=1134612928]
How dare YOU tell me not to support our troops.
[/quote]

I don't know if that was aimed at me or not, so, just to be sure:

I didn't. I've also explained my understanding of the phrase previous to your post, and I doubt that it conflicts significantly with yours.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=13498.msg137762#msg137762 date=1134618769]
[quote author=DarkMinion link=topic=13498.msg137741#msg137741 date=1134612928]
How dare YOU tell me not to support our troops.
[/quote]

I don't know if that was aimed at me or not, so, just to be sure:

I didn't. I've also explained my understanding of the phrase previous to your post, and I doubt that it conflicts significantly with yours.
[/quote]I think he means Grok.  I've found Grok's posts very confusing on whether or not he actually support the US troops

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13498.msg137764#msg137764 date=1134619518]
I think he means Grok.  I've found Grok's posts very confusing on whether or not he actually support the US troops
[/quote]

My interpretation is that he supports the troops and wishes them happiness and a long prosperous life, though he does not support sending them to Iraq or the people who sent them to Iraq.




[quote author=Topaz link=topic=13498.msg137743#msg137743 date=1134613740]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=13498.msg137704#msg137704 date=1134606498]
And you still do not owe up to your debts. Cheap. [url]http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/tables/core/usvtotalindex.htm[/url]


And you still give relatively less to those in need than other countries. Cheap.
[/quote]

It's a bit hard to force corporations to take losses of nearly three million dollars in order to satisfy the government. We ARE capitalist, and therefore it takes a while to force changes upon the people. Own up to our debts? We've gone into debt by providing foreign aid, providing defenses to countries, and sending shit around the world to protect you guys. We're a fucking superpower; there are going to be backdrops, its not like we can help EVERYONE. Remember those tsunamis near/around India and the pacific rim? We've contributed billions to help those people, and not just the government. Shut up.
[/quote]

It is not hard at all to force corporations into taking losses of a few million dollars. McDonalds took greater losses for making hot coffee. All you have to do is decide, companies will adapt.

Your debts, as I linked. It is kinda sad how a superpower does not pay its debts.

And in another thread on this forum, we discussed how the US gives relatively less than other developed countries.

Cheap.

Debt owed to an organization we started? We're in a war, if you recall. Funds are kind of short.

Haha, I love how Arta, who lives in England, can list our politicians, yet I don't even know who Tony Blair is. Sure, I've heard the name, but it doesn't come to mind when I think of people I disrespect (for reference, Bush does). Go Arta. /pat on back.

EDIT -
[quote author=Topaz link=topic=13498.msg137785#msg137785 date=1134628603]
Debt owed to an organization we started? We're in a war, if you recall. Funds are kind of short.
[/quote][img]http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/175/249/1600/orly.jpg[/img]

[quote author=Joe link=topic=13498.msg137786#msg137786 date=1134631272]
Haha, I love how Arta, who lives in England, can list our politicians, yet I don't even know who Tony Blair is. Sure, I've heard the name, but it doesn't come to mind when I think of people I disrespect (for reference, Bush does). Go Arta. /pat on back.
[/quote]

And what's that say about you? Pretty much that any argument you would have is null and void since you don't even know who the Prime Minister of our greatest ally is.

Hm, our greatest ally has a prime minister? Who is our greatest ally, anyhow? I just disrespect Bush because he hopped in on Iraq's business. We were discussing this at Youth Convention, when we reheld the presidential election in the church van on the way back to hotel. Of course, everyone came back at me saying it had to be stopped, which I agree with, but eh. All in all, I disrespect Bush and will be happy leaving it at that.

[quote]Hm, our greatest ally has a prime minister? Who is our greatest ally, anyhow?[/quote]

Anything you say should be discounted because of this.  Good lord...you try to talk world politics, but you can't answer those questions?  I hope you're just joking.  He's talking about Great Britain...whom Tony Blair is prime minister of.  I'm sure I don't need to explain the British monarchy to you.

[quote]We were discussing this at Youth Convention, when we reheld the presidential election in the church van on the way back to hotel.[/quote]

Wow that's awesome.[/sarcasm]

Go shake Saddam's hand.

You'd be surprised how many people in the US don't know who Canada's Prime Minister is (and when somebody talks about the Canadian president, my heart sinks).  We're your closest neighbor, and we always know what's going on in American politics (for the most part), but I can't believet hat so many Americans can be so ignorant. 

And by next month, we might have a different Prime Minister.  But that's ok, because a lot of Americans still name our PM from the 80's :)

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13498.msg137764#msg137764 date=1134619518]I think he means Grok.  I've found Grok's posts very confusing on whether or not he actually support the US troops[/quote]

Sure as heck doesn't mean me.  I support the soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen probably more than any of you will ever know.  Since I see that confusion still prevails, I will once again explain why I started this thread.

Reasoning:

Certain people, for their own agenda, will have you believe that you must go along with their foreign policy and that if you do not, you are not "supporting the troops".  The entire point of this thread is to point out to anyone believing in that manner, who believes that you must agree and support POLICY or you are not supporting the people, our relatives friends and citizens, wearing the uniform and following their orders, that they are NOT the same thing.

You can disagree and protest policy and still be a strong supporter of humans wearing uniform and wishing to defend the ideals of their country and ideals they believe in.

I am one such person.  I have the utmost respect for the individuals who, like myself, consciously and literally volunteered their life to serve the ideals of freedom and defense of freedom for ourselves, and for our allies, wherever in the world that defense needed to be made.  For my six years I knew what purpose I was serving and was proud of it, and still am proud of it.  So I am the FIRST to protest when people try to attack freedom of speech, freedom of pursuit of happiness, anything related to our Constitution, and all those things I DEFENDED.  So how dare ANY OF YOU attack me for defending those ideals that I served to protect.  Now that I am no longer wearing a uniform of an armed service, I do not stop defending the Constitution and our God-given rights or self-given rights.

You should be disgusted when Bush plays the "support our troops" card in order for him to build your support for his foreign policy.  They are NOT the same thing and he is treating each of you as FOOLS for believing they are the same thing.  Every time you argue that people who disagree with his policy must not be supporting troops, he wins in his domination over your mind.

[quote author=iago link=topic=13498.msg137808#msg137808 date=1134664980]
You'd be surprised how many people in the US don't know who Canada's Prime Minister is (and when somebody talks about the Canadian president, my heart sinks).  We're your closest neighbor, and we always know what's going on in American politics (for the most part), but I can't believet hat so many Americans can be so ignorant. 

And by next month, we might have a different Prime Minister.  But that's ok, because a lot of Americans still name our PM from the 80's :)
[/quote]

Easy to explain, and not joking here.  You may be our closest neighbor but your foreign policy is not one that forces itself into the daily lives of Americans.  We don't need to know what's going on in Canadian politics.  I don't need to know what's going on in Georgia politics and that's the next state up from me.

I don't know who Canada's prime minister is...
I know Mexico's president

I was going to say the same thing actually.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13498.msg137823#msg137823 date=1134672133]
I don't know who Canada's prime minister is...
I know Mexico's president
[/quote]

You don't know Canda's prime minister, yet you feel that you know enough about Canada to attack our country's policies?  I don't understand how....

If you want to argue about something, learn about it first.  Otherwise, you sound ignorant. 

Too bad Canada is pretty much unimportant. :P

For the record, Paul Martin.

[quote author=iago link=topic=13498.msg137839#msg137839 date=1134679212]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13498.msg137823#msg137823 date=1134672133]
I don't know who Canada's prime minister is...
I know Mexico's president
[/quote]

You don't know Canda's prime minister, yet you feel that you know enough about Canada to attack our country's policies?  I don't understand how....

If you want to argue about something, learn about it first.  Otherwise, you sound ignorant. 
[/quote]I read an article & posted specifically to what was mentioned in that article.  I haven't gone outside my knowledge base.

I read that the platforms for the upcoming Canadian elections focus on US policy quite a bit.  I also read that Canada's government toppled last month.  I didn't mention anything else about Canada, other than gun/murder stuff I looked up.

No, the government didn't "topple".

What happened was complicated.  Basically, we had a minority government.  What that means is that more than half of the elected officals aren't from the ruling party.  That means that as soon as somebody is annoyed at a decision made by the ruling party, they can have a "no confidence" vote and force an election to be called.  That is what happened. 

The ruling party could have overridden it since it wasn't an overpowering vote, but they chose not to.  There is going to be an election in a couple months anyway, so they decided not to postpone it. 

If anything, the fact that this can happen shows that we have a strong democratic nation.  I only wish they could have a vote to toss out George Bush without being called traitors. 

While the election is happening, Paul Martin and his party is still in charge.  So you can't say that our government has "toppled", it is just going through a change. 

This is the wrong thread for this discussio, though.  :P

I don't believe a vote of no confidence  work pass for Bush.

Your political system is set up quite a bit differently than ours. 

[quote author=iago link=topic=13498.msg137873#msg137873 date=1134683736]
Your political system is set up quite a bit differently than ours. 
[/quote]yeah, I was just acknowledging your comment about a "vote of no confidence" for Bush

Simply because the majority of the people disapprove of the leader's actions in no way implies that he acted wrongly, or that he failed in any respect to serve the interests of the people.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13498.msg137875#msg137875 date=1134683880]
[quote author=iago link=topic=13498.msg137873#msg137873 date=1134683736]
Your political system is set up quite a bit differently than ours. 
[/quote]yeah, I was just acknowledging your comment about a "vote of no confidence" for Bush
[/quote]
If our leader made the same mistakes (err, decisions) as Bush, I'll bet he would have. 

[quote author=Topaz link=topic=13498.msg137901#msg137901 date=1134688589]
Simply because the majority of the people disapprove of the leader's actions in no way implies that he acted wrongly, or that he failed in any respect to serve the interests of the people.
[/quote]
This is true.  The opposite also applies. 

Bush's approval rating is going back up (47% I last saw), I dont think there would be a majority in a no confidence vote...a majority against him anyway

Who cares about Bush's approval rating? Those are small samples. Whereas, a larger survey, LIKE AN ELECTION, shows the views of the ENTIRE country. And, suprisingly, as a whole, we approve!

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13498.msg137906#msg137906 date=1134689513]
Bush's approval rating is going back up (47% I last saw), I dont think there would be a majority in a no confidence vote...a majority against him anyway
[/quote]

The confidence vote is done by elected officials.  And there are more elected officials that aren't in his party than that are in his party. 

Liberal 135
Conservative 99
Bloc Québécois 54
New Democratic 19

The liberals are in power, with 135 seats; however, if you add up the other ones, you'll see there there are 162 members that aren't in his party.  That means he has 162 enemies and 135 friends.  So it would be a lot easier to vote him out. 

OH!...a vote of no confidence from Canada for Bush...that seems rather pointless

Better then America, we stand up with thats right, and don't go along with bullshit.

And btw these unimportant farmers back in 1812 burnt down your white house.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13498.msg137959#msg137959 date=1134707763]
OH!...a vote of no confidence from Canada for Bush...that seems rather pointless
[/quote]

You're missing the point, though. 

If the US had the same type of government as we currently do (where 135 seats are in Bush's party, and 162 aren't), there is a much better chance that a vote to call an early election would pass. 

And for the record, Canada's elections don't happen at fixed intervals.  We have ours every 3-5 years, whenever the elected party decides they want to have it. 

But if it were our government we'd have more conservative people in the parliament (or w/e it is called exactly)

You mean more corrupted people.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13498.msg137970#msg137970 date=1134709216]
But if it were our government we'd have more conservative people in the parliament (or w/e it is called exactly)
[/quote]

The ratios change every year.  There's no telling what we're going to have in a month, and there's no telling what you would have.  I'll definitely be posting here and letting you all know who our new PM is, though (if it's not Martin again).

[quote]And btw these unimportant farmers back in 1812 burnt down your white house.[/quote]
I would hardlly call british soilders farmers.

Do some research. Considering the british forces at the time were basically militia.




Seriously...

I am a u.s history major not a world history major.  I honestlly couldn't give a rats ass about who the british were using as soilders.  However, from the little bit of reading I did over the internet, the british soilders that sieged d.c where career soilders who had recentlly finished the napoleonic wars.  There for while their fathers might have been soilders, not too up on the british hierarchy at the time, they were international soilders being payed by the british parliment.

[quote]And btw these unimportant farmers back in 1812 burnt down your white house.[/quote]

Yeah, awesome.  That's why Canada has such a big piece of the pie now, eh?  ::)

Mexico is closer. Can anyone say "its Montezuma"?

Look everyone is going to bring something different to the arguments.  Not one of us knows everything and that means everyone could learn something from someone else.  When you present new arguments, there's no need to present it in a snide way.  It's not true that "anyone who studied XYZ knows 123" .. that's just another way of telling someone "hey you're so stupid that ..." and its not even a clever way.

This thread is entirely off topic though.

Topaz has already gotten a warning for unmotivated personal assaults too. The next one might not be as temporary.

The first one wasn't intended to be temporary.

I've deleted all my posts and moved the discussion to PM.

The first one was temporary, but Adron didn't think to mention that in the "Reason".  :P

[quote author=iago link=topic=13498.msg138206#msg138206 date=1134848269]
The first one was temporary, but Adron didn't think to mention that in the "Reason".  :P
[/quote]

Particularly I put the reason in the reason and tend to assume the expiration date will be visible elsewhere... A permanent ban is typically enforced.

I got bored of deleting things. This thread has gone way off-topic. Feel free to start a new thread if you want to ressurect the conversation.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=13498.msg138362#msg138362 date=1134950624]
I got bored of deleting things. This thread has gone way off-topic. Feel free to start a new thread if you want to ressurect the conversation.
[/quote]

Splitting and moving is much quicker than deleting. Check all the off-topic and there you go. Just a friendly tip :)