Top-Ten Reasons to Get Out of Iraq. Now!

[maineman]

Sure they do, you know this cause your tin foil hat came loose and you caught an errant mind ray reading, of course.

interesting concept: public opinion polls. they are much more reliable than errant mind rays.

 

[ErikViking]

And still no response from the left. Your all a bunch of hypocrites. But then I already knew that, this is just icing on the cake, the absolute verifiable proof that liberals don't care what another liberal does. Any offense is acceptable, any lie tolerable. Any Ignorance backed up. Why? because liberals only care about the end. ANY means are justified.

What do you think is the worst about comparing US troops to German troops in the 40ies?

Germany presented a well trained, ahead of its time army. The soldiers where skilled and highly motivated. During the course of the war they fought hard and brave and in the end sacrificing their lifes to buy time for having the remaining civilians not falling under soviet control.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What do you think is the worst about comparing US troops to German troops in the 40ies?

Germany presented a well trained, ahead of its time army. The soldiers where skilled and highly motivated. During the course of the war they fought hard and brave and in the end sacrificing their lifes to buy time for having the remaining civilians not falling under soviet control.

Her intent is not to make a favorable comparison, the intent is to place a seed of doubt to make one envision a totalatarian regime with an army and people willing to follow immoral and illegal orders, murdering innocents because they either agree or are afraid to disagree.

 

[Gunny]

responded to...played on...

semantic gymnastics.

fact: on 9/12/01, nearly everyone in America knew who Osama bin Laden was and what he had just done to us.

fact: less than two years later, 70% of Americans thought that Saddam was responsible.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

Fact, once again you dredge up the same tired poll. It's credibility is questionable. I don't believe 70% of all Americans believed any such nonsense, since, it IS nonsense. I already provided a link to a statement by the Bush Administration on this where it is clearly stated one is not linked to the other.

Then you claim it was done by subliminal message. How come onlt liberals who want to claim the admin used subliminal messaging appear to have fallen for it? Again, highly questionable.

 

[Gunny]

What do you think is the worst about comparing US troops to German troops in the 40ies?

Germany presented a well trained, ahead of its time army. The soldiers where skilled and highly motivated. During the course of the war they fought hard and brave and in the end sacrificing their lifes to buy time for having the remaining civilians not falling under soviet control.

That is not the comparison being made. The comparison being made is to the carrying out a madman's program of genocide. Some people just like to talk out their asses knowing little of the subject they're talking about -- that there is a difference between the SS and the Wermacht.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That is not the comparison being made. The comparison being made is to the carrying out a madman's program of genocide. Some people just like to talk out their asses knowing little of the subject they're talking about -- that there is a difference between the SS and the Wermacht.

You got it wrong Gunny, according to Reilly we just are not Nuianced enough to understand her REAL point. According to Reilly she didn't call American troops mass murderers, terrorists or Nazi's. I am just making it all up.

 

[ReillyT]

You got it wrong Gunny, according to Reilly we just are not Nuianced enough to understand her REAL point. According to Reilly she didn't call American troops mass murderers, terrorists or Nazi's. I am just making it all up.

I don't know how exactly I put a bee in your bonnet. Easy boy...

I really can't vouch for everything Ruby may have said, as I haven't read all of her posts. However, at least with respect to her characterizations of the US as engaging in terrorist acts, she was relying on a technical definition of terrorism that derived from her characterization of the war as an illegal act itself. It is an interesting point, and I have no qualms about her making the argument (although I don't care enough to actually think about whether the war is illegal, which I find a point of scemantics with little practical significance). As for her reference to Nazism, I think she was making an analogy between the leeway granted to the Nazi regime (in its illegal activities) by its citizens, and the leeway granted to the current administration by the American populace. I don't believe (to the extent that I have read her posts) that she was actually stating that American soldiers are morally comparable to Nazi prison guards or anything like that. Of course, there is an easy way to settle this question, ask Ruby. Don't bring me into it.

 

[Gunny]

I don't know how exactly I put a bee in your bonnet. Easy boy...

I really can't vouch for everything Ruby may have said, as I haven't read all of her posts. However, at least with respect to her characterizations of the US as engaging in terrorist acts, she was relying on a technical definition of terrorism that derived from her characterization of the war as an illegal act itself. It is an interesting point, and I have no qualms about her making the argument (although I don't care enough to actually think about whether the war is illegal, which I find a point of scemantics with little practical significance). As for her reference to Nazism, I think she was making an analogy between the leeway granted to the Nazi regime (in its illegal activities) by its citizens, and the leeway granted to the current administration by the American populace. I don't believe (to the extent that I have read her posts) that she was actually stating that American soldiers are morally comparable to Nazi prison guards or anything like that. Of course, there is an easy way to settle this question, ask Ruby. Don't bring me into it.

You're defending a person who is anti-US, anti-Bush, and labels our military and its leaders murderers and terrorists. Not agreeing with Bush and the war is one thing ... being just flat-out far-left extremist spreading lies quite another.

 

[ReillyT]

You're defending a person who is anti-US, anti-Bush, and labels our military and its leaders murderers and terrorists. Not agreeing with Bush and the war is one thing ... being just flat-out far-left extremist spreading lies quite another.

I agree that she is anti-Bush. I don't think she is anti-US (she just wishes the US acted differently than it does). She has labeled the military and its leaders "murderers." However, I think that has more to do with the fact that she is a pacifist (or at least appears to be). She holds the ideological view that any agression, and specifically, any agression that results in the deaths of many civilians, is inherently unlawful, and hence murder. Could she use less-inflamatory language? Yes, I think she could. However, her view is not so extreme that it should immediately be discounted. In fact, it is held by a lot of people throughout the world.

As for the claim that she spreads lies, I don't agree with that. She is not one hundred percent accurate in everything that she says, but generally speaking, I have found her more than willing to provide links to support her factual claims. In sum, I find her no less factually accurate that most on this board.

Do I agree with Ruby all the time? No, I don't. Do I agree with your assessment of her? No, I don't.

Why for the life of me it is important to some that I and others actively debate Ruby on these issues, I don't know. If you or anyone else disagrees with Ruby, feel free to debate the issue with her. She is more than willing. I don't know why I need to be involved.

 

[maineman]

I agree that she is anti-Bush. I don't think she is anti-US (she just wishes the US acted differently than it does). She has labeled the military and its leaders "murderers." However, I think that has more to do with the fact that she is a pacifist (or at least appears to be). She holds the ideological view that any agression, and specifically, any agression that results in the deaths of many civilians, is inherently unlawful, and hence murder. Could she use less-inflamatory language? Yes, I think she could. However, her view is not so extreme that it should immediately be discounted. In fact, it is held by a lot of people throughout the world.

As for the claim that she spreads lies, I don't agree with that. She is not one hundred percent accurate in everything that she says, but generally speaking, I have found her more than willing to provide links to support her factual claims. In sum, I find her no less factually accurate that most on this board.

Do I agree with Ruby all the time? No, I don't. Do I agree with your assessment of her? No, I don't.

Why for the life of me it is important to some that I and others actively debate Ruby on these issues, I don't know. If you or anyone else disagrees with Ruby, feel free to debate the issue with her. She is more than willing. I don't know why I need to be involved.

exactly...this conflation of anti-Bush with anti-US is really getting tedious.

When the republicans in congress were speaking out against Clinton's actions in the Balkans - WHILE TROOPS WERE ON THE GROUND - were THEY "anti-US"????? And if so, how does one go from being anti-US to honorable patriot simply with the changing of the guard at the white house?

 

[ErikViking]

Her intent is not to make a favorable comparison, the intent is to place a seed of doubt to make one envision a totalatarian regime with an army and people willing to follow immoral and illegal orders, murdering innocents because they either agree or are afraid to disagree.

Okay, but without referring to her intention I find historical comparisons useful. They show both similarities and differances. To ensure a society not turns into something like Nazi germany in the 30ies those comparisons are good to make. That is not the same thing as making something look like something it ain't.

That is not the comparison being made. The comparison being made is to the carrying out a madman's program of genocide. Some people just like to talk out their asses knowing little of the subject they're talking about -- that there is a difference between the SS and the Wermacht.

A comparison can always be made. The conclusions are what matters. Of course US troops, leaders and society shows similarities with their historical counterparts. But is it alarming? Not to me. Most worrying similarity is how citizens freely sacrifice integrity (Patriot act) to a higher good and the widthspread dehumanization of muslims. But the differances weigh heavy. This very messageboard would have been a serious threat to Nazi Germany.

What did you mean by that last thing? Would you say an average infantry soldier is no different from a member of SS? Then I would have to disagree.

 

[Gunny]

I agree that she is anti-Bush. I don't think she is anti-US (she just wishes the US acted differently than it does). She has labeled the military and its leaders "murderers." However, I think that has more to do with the fact that she is a pacifist (or at least appears to be). She holds the ideological view that any agression, and specifically, any agression that results in the deaths of many civilians, is inherently unlawful, and hence murder. Could she use less-inflamatory language? Yes, I think she could. However, her view is not so extreme that it should immediately be discounted. In fact, it is held by a lot of people throughout the world.

As for the claim that she spreads lies, I don't agree with that. She is not one hundred percent accurate in everything that she says, but generally speaking, I have found her more than willing to provide links to support her factual claims. In sum, I find her no less factually accurate that most on this board.

Do I agree with Ruby all the time? No, I don't. Do I agree with your assessment of her? No, I don't.

Why for the life of me it is important to some that I and others actively debate Ruby on these issues, I don't know. If you or anyone else disagrees with Ruby, feel free to debate the issue with her. She is more than willing. I don't know why I need to be involved.

You're entitled to your opinion, and i could care less whether or not you debate ruby. Seems to me, you involved yourself.

As far as factual accuracy goes, anyone who is a pure pacifist is not dealing in factual accuracy nor reality.

 

[Gunny]

Okay, but without referring to her intention I find historical comparisons useful. They show both similarities and differances. To ensure a society not turns into something like Nazi germany in the 30ies those comparisons are good to make. That is not the same thing as making something look like something it ain't.




A comparison can always be made. The conclusions are what matters. Of course US troops, leaders and society shows similarities with their historical counterparts. But is it alarming? Not to me. Most worrying similarity is how citizens freely sacrifice integrity (Patriot act) to a higher good and the widthspread dehumanization of muslims. But the differances weigh heavy. This very messageboard would have been a serious threat to Nazi Germany.

What did you mean by that last thing? Would you say an average infantry soldier is no different from a member of SS? Then I would have to disagree.

You would be incorrect. SS troops swore a an oath of loyalty to HITLER, not Germany. Wermacht troops were regular army troops mostly used in combat, not to carry out Hitler's genocidal "final solution."

 

[eots]

The Nazis didnt lose the war they just changed locations

The Truth Seeker - Operation PaperclipThe U.S. Military rounded up Nazi scientists and brought them to America. ... Convinced that German scientists could help America's post-war efforts, ...
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=122 - 45k

 

[ErikViking]

Some people just like to talk out their asses knowing little of the subject they're talking about -- that there is a difference between the SS and the Wermacht.

What did you mean by that last thing? Would you say an average infantry soldier is no different from a member of SS? Then I would have to disagree.

You would be incorrect. SS troops swore a an oath of loyalty to HITLER, not Germany. Wermacht troops were regular army troops mostly used in combat, not to carry out Hitler's genocidal "final solution."

GunnyL... I don't know...

 

[ReillyT]

You're entitled to your opinion, and i could care less whether or not you debate ruby. Seems to me, you involved yourself.

Actually, it was RGS who brought me in, and then I responded to him, and you responded to me, and... However, point taken, I did rise to the bait.

As far as factual accuracy goes, anyone who is a pure pacifist is not dealing in factual accuracy nor reality.

On its face, that comment is so silly that I think I must be misinterpreting it. Pacifism is a normative view of the world; it cannot be fact. As for reality, if you mean that the world is not pacific, you are right, but no one ever claimed otherwise.

 

[Gunny]

Actually, it was RGS who brought me in, and then I responded to him, and you responded to me, and... However, point taken, I did rise to the bait.



On its face, that comment is so silly that I think I must be misinterpreting it. Pacifism is a normative view of the world; it cannot be fact. As for reality, if you mean that the world is not pacific, you are right, but no one ever claimed otherwise.

Make up your mind please. IS my comment "silly," or is it fact that the world is not pacific? You may call pacifism a normative view of the world, but I say it is anything but when it refuses to address reality. It is a view based on a perfect, Utopian world; which, we already agree does not exist.

If I have snakes in my yard, I'm not taking them a bouquet. I'm bringing a scattergun.

 

[ReillyT]

Make up your mind please. IS my comment "silly," or is it fact that the world is not pacific? You may call pacifism a normative view of the world, but I say it is anything but when it refuses to address reality. It is a view based on a perfect, Utopian world; which, we already agree does not exist.

If I have snakes in my yard, I'm not taking them a bouquet. I'm bringing a scattergun.

Your comment about pacifism not being accurate was silly, because it is purely a normative view. It isn't a factual stance - the normative view can be neither accurate nor inaccurate. It doesn't address the reality of today, except to say that this reality is an inferior one to a reality guided by pacifist principles.

Aside from the normative nature of pacifism, it is fact that the world is not pacific - a fact no pacifist would deny.

 

[Gunny]

Your comment about pacifism not being accurate was silly, because it is purely a normative view. It isn't a factual stance - the normative view can be neither accurate nor inaccurate. It doesn't address the reality of today, except to say that this reality is an inferior one to a reality guided by pacifist principles.

Aside from the normative nature of pacifism, it is fact that the world is not pacific - a fact no pacifist would deny.

If one allows an aggressor to beat them half to death with without raising so much as a finger in self defense, that IS a factual stance.

I have no problem with idealism except where it interferes with addressign reality. For some reasn, it wsa believed we would be welcome with open arms and cascading rose petals in Iraq due to political idealism that refused to address reality.

Taken one step further ... a pacifist villifying US troops as terrorists and murderers to support an ideal that does not address reality, and I'm running up the bullshit flag.

 

[ReillyT]

If one allows an aggressor to beat them half to death with without raising so much as a finger in self defense, that IS a factual stance.

I have no problem with idealism except where it interferes with addressign reality. For some reasn, it wsa believed we would be welcome with open arms and cascading rose petals in Iraq due to political idealism that refused to address reality.

Taken one step further ... a pacifist villifying US troops as terrorists and murderers to support an ideal that does not address reality, and I'm running up the bullshit flag.

First, I should say that it was I who referred to Ruby as a pacifist, and I am not absolutely true that this is the case (that was just my impression based upon reading her posts), so if it is not, I apologize to Ruby.

Second, my guess is there are different strains of thought within the general pacifist philosophy and that some may accept certain forms of defensive, but not offensive, violence.

Finally, my intent was just to place some claims made in context. Ruby, for instance, has backed up her claims/definitions about the US activities through resort to international law and the legality of the US war in that context.