35 replies [Last post]
Offline
Location: North Louisiana
Joined: 12/08/2006
Posts: 120
Thanks for Nothing
Captain_Obvious wrote:
If I were to, by some quirk of fate, choose to reject your suggestion of taking a hike, what would be the consequences, or lack thereof?

It is not a matter of me liking or disliking the posts you write; however, I fail to understand why you have this extremely inflated sense of grandiosity and entitlement. Think

Additionally, although I am appreciative of your addressing the intellect of the other posters, that is very good that you recognize others' potential, I don't see how I would benefit from you imposing on their intellect. It's not your ability to discern fact from fiction that is in question but rather it is your belief that your own personal views are facts written in stone that must be agreed with by all.

There's no shame in considering seeking help, these types of personality issues can lead to social problems and even family difficulties. You may actually feel better for accepting the possibility of a problem and doing something about it.

Captain Oblivious

"your belief that your own personal views are facts written in stone"

You're absolutely right.....FOR ONCE! They are......TO ME! I don't give a rip what anyone else thinks of what I write and I'm not holding a pistol to anyone's head to accept what I have written! What I write......WORKS FOR ME and has....for a very long time. Forums are for an exchange of information and ideas and I have much experience about which I have written! Whether or not there are those that wish to accept some or all of my ideas remains to be seen and I don't intend to let the likes of you bother me one iota from expressing my views!

As for my initial posting whereby I used your post to express my views concerning the issue at hand.....I assumed that you would have had enough intellect to understand that it WAS NOT a derogative comeback but rather a post that was agreeing with your post with my own comments regarding the issue!

Apparently...such was not the case! I consider this issue closed!

Offline
Location: Missouri/Arkansas
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 891
Thanks for Nothing

''NOONE can beat the USA on a level battlefield! That's a MOOT ISSUE! But.....we do not know how to fight an event aka WAR....that is totally clandestine in nature! When Bush gave away the secret that WE were not going to fight an ALL-OUT WAR.....such as fought in WWII where we killed the old/young/infirmed/battle troops/etc. that was as much as telling the TERRORIST that they had already won! This will not occur UNTIL we lose a couple of cities to NUCLEAR BLAST and the American "Pussyfoot Public" understands that this is a WAR OF SURVIVAL!

One cannot win a war by being POLITICALLY CORRECT! Maybe my grandchildren will do a better job than the current generation.....if they manage to survive!! ''

The above is a direct quote, If this is a post which is intended to agree with my initial post in this thread, it's not very apparent. In fact, it's more of a rant than a reply.

In addressing specific issues cited in your post, it is true that the engagement in Iraq is characteristically difference from the total wars fought in the early and mid-20th century. It is also true that simply withdrawing and walking away is somewhat analogical to walking away from and ignoring a brush fire.

An indepth source of information on the concept of political correctness can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

Although the concept does tend to invoke negative reactions from people where it relates to speech, such as referring to black people as African-American or using ''visually impaired'' instead of the word ''blind.'' Most of the concept relates to carefully chosen language, and how or why it would/could be applied to a war is beyond me, I hypothesize that the general public's view of war has changed in the last 70 years, and even more since the Vietnam years.

Conversely, the American public's attitude toward other events or experiences tends to change with long gaps between exposures to them. Drug use was at one time something everybody did, people viewed it very casually. Nowadays, even caffeine is progressively losing favor, as are nicotine and alcohol. Homosexuality was once viewed as extremely objectionable; nowadays, among most people, homophobia is viewed as objectionable, same thing for racism and sexism. AIDS gripped the whole country with fear for almost 20 years; it seems these days people, especially the younger generations, are convinced it is under control in spite of clear medical evidence that the clades of HIV found in this hemisphere are well-adapted to heterosexual transmission. The public's perception of war has also changed accordingly.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Thanks for Nothing

I hate to say "I told you so," but let's look at where we are 5 months after my original post:

We're in the middle of a troop surge in Iraq that's working so well that the media has had to fill the front page with Anna Nicole Smith and Alberto Gonzales. They' won't report that things are going well...they just stop reporting the bad.

Nevertheless, the Democrats are running up the white flag and demanding withdrawl by March 08 with the apparent goal of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Speaker Pelosi refused to lead the House in a resolution condemning Iran for its kidnapping of 15 Brits, and instead ran off to drink tea with Syria -- the people behind Hezbollah and Iran's closest ally.

It's been said that those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it. In the 1930s, Neville Chamberlain pursued a policy of appeasement with Germany that actually fed Hitler's ambitions. Here's what Chamberlain once said -- words the Democrats have apparently taken to heart:

"We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a program would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators."

This from a guy who gave away Czecheslovakia and crowed about "peace within our time." The libs are following Chamberlain's playbook into disaster by taking Islamists at their word. Meanwhile, Iran is following Hitler's lead by claiming to have purely peaceful intentions. Remember that Hitler denied having any intention to annex Austria, disavowed any claim on French territory, and said they were no threat to Poland.

When your sons, nephews, or brothers are fighting in the coming war, remember who got them there. As Ronald Reagan once said:

"Of the four wars that have occurred in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong."

The one thing that gives me hope is the thought that there are a lot of people out there who voted for change, not surrender, and are getting upset as this plays out.

Offline
Location: Missouri/Arkansas
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 891
Thanks for Nothing

In 30 years this country is going to be like Canada.

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
Thanks for Nothing

Couple comments.

1.) I think the surge has worked to some degree in Baghdad based on the reported injured and killed iraqi civilans. However it seems that places like Ramandi, Kirkuk (surprisingly), and Basra have seen spikes in insurgent crap. To a certain extent I question whether we have enough troop to enforce the peace with the current rules of engagement.

2.) I'm troubled by the democrats persistance in setting a timeframe for withdrawal. Its political posturing and no more, since Bush has said he will veto and there is lack in both the senate and house to override.