Pack up and leave Iraq?

[gam-e]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
I can admire someone who is willing to put their neck out there for what they believe. The other guy is just some butt kisser who tells us all what we want to believe.

so if someone writes a song that expresses their political beliefs, and happens to coincide with the masses beliefs, he is ALWAYS being a buttkisser who tells us what we want to hear?

rediculous, you sir are a heritic. you hold double standards so long as they "appear" to others as strenthening your argument.

Dion

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by gam-e


so if someone writes a song that expresses their political beliefs, and happens to coincide with the masses beliefs, he is ALWAYS being a buttkisser who tells us what we want to hear?

rediculous, you sir are a heritic. you hold double standards so long as they "appear" to others as strenthening your argument.

Dion

Bah I'm over my admiration of the Dixie Chicks since the secretary at the office just told me the cried and apologized for their stance on national TV.

Also you want to have a song that coincides with the masses since that is the way you make money. I have no problem with trying to make a song popular. BUT the song IS stupid as it tries to draw a parallel between Iraq and 9/11. Plus that line about this country just looking for a fight and after 9/11 they may be right is just plain stupid.

And I'm a heretic (note proper spelling) am I? I don't see what having a double standard has to do with being a heretic. Perhaps you mean hypocrite? If that is correct than you are totally right. I am willing to accept that there is some hypocrisy in existence (from myself as well). But I'm going to call all of you conservatives on this board who seem to be able to do nothing but repeat what rich propagandizers like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Hannity spew.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife


You're kidding right?

It's FACT that Clinton cut the military spending by HUGE amounts.

It's FACT that Clinton on more than one occasion expressed his dislike for the military.

It's FACT that he inherited a robust economy AND the greatest military extant, and SQUANDERED both of them the same way he squandered his Presidency. He left both in shambles for the next guy to clean up the same way he leaves everything in his wake a mess.

So don't even try to make that point, it ain't flying.

I tried to stay out of this for it is a rather pointless debate, like most on here. But this comment brought my attention.

If Clinton butchered the military, cut its strength less then operational, completely ended its chance of protecting us. Then how with no drastic increase in military spending, with no drastic increase in military technology, with no drastic increase in military matters, how come the butchered, squandered, and ruined army that Bush inherited was able to take over Afghanistan and Iraq, with little to no loses of its own. How can a military in the span of 2 years, completely rewrite its organization, tactics, equipment, and personal? All of which they would had to do if your assessment was true.

The point of the cutting of funds to anything, is to try and make that organization tie up its lose ends, cut unnecessary waste of money, but yet keep up its job. But instead of cutting their projects and doing the hard job of stopping waste, the congress (republican after 94) appropriates more and more money away from the areas that hurt the most to the public. Personal, training, etc.. They do this in order to build up public support for their party, in order to gain votes in the next election.

[gam-e]

spelling is my worst subject, but that didn't stop me from getting a 1470 on my sat. forgive my igriGeous spelling errors. im going to cut off my left thumb now as punishment.

Dion

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by gam-e
spelling is my worst subject, but that didn't stop me from getting a 1470 on my sat.
Dion

Why didn't you get a 1500. Just kidding man

[gam-e]

because im dumb. im taking it again, and i better get that or better

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by gam-e
because im dumb. im taking it again, and i better get that or better

I was joking dude. A 1470 is a good score, and unless you want to get a full ride into Columbia, or MIT, a 1470 is good enough to get you accepted and a scholarship into any school in the nation, well unless you grow up in the south, where even a 1560 is not good enough.

But I would stick with it for you might make lower and a 1470 is good enough.

But this is getting way off topic.

[paintballguy429]

Originally posted by shartley

Yes.... and guess who one of their "big" leaders was? You got it.... Binladen himself.....

Actually there has been new evidence from former CIA/DOD officials who worked during the early 80s bragging about how they supposedly lured the Soviets into a trap in Afghanistant to further the fear/hatred of the USSR in the US and around the world. Either way the US would win. The Soviets take over, who cares-we don't lose any troops, Afghanistan was not of much interest at the time so who controlled it wasn't of any significance. The Afghans win great Soviets take a hit.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


I tried to stay out of this for it is a rather pointless debate, like most on here. But this comment brought my attention.

If Clinton butchered the military, cut its strength less then operational, completely ended its chance of protecting us. Then how with no drastic increase in military spending, with no drastic increase in military technology, with no drastic increase in military matters, how come the butchered, squandered, and ruined army that Bush inherited was able to take over Afghanistan and Iraq, with little to no loses of its own. How can a military in the span of 2 years, completely rewrite its organization, tactics, equipment, and personal? All of which they would had to do if your assessment was true.

The point of the cutting of funds to anything, is to try and make that organization tie up its lose ends, cut unnecessary waste of money, but yet keep up its job. But instead of cutting their projects and doing the hard job of stopping waste, the congress (republican after 94) appropriates more and more money away from the areas that hurt the most to the public. Personal, training, etc.. They do this in order to build up public support for their party, in order to gain votes in the next election.

[paintballguy429]

Originally posted by Restola
None of the people against the war could care less about Iraq or the Iraqi people.

The only thing they are concerned about is bashing Bush, "selected-not-elected", and promoting their environmental and socialist causes.

Always remember that.

Want to support that? You're not exactly in a position for criticizing supporting the Iraqi people when you're advocating dropping bombs on them

[paintballguy429]

Originally posted by paintballguy429


No, I'm sorry, it was a bad analogy.

The US citing violations of international law as cause for war is like Jeffery Dohmer prosecuting murder trials.

The song is irrational! It essentially says that the US should be looking for a fight because of 9/11. Read it!

*EDIT* When you must resort to cussing to make your point, you only cause rational people to discount anything else you present. Army

dude wtf. i post a song with one word that you don't like. the song is a lot less harmful than the militaristic murderous messages in 1stdeadeyes trashy hick music.

[paintballguy429]

Originally posted by shartley

LOL! 330 billion a year isn't enough when we have people at home starving? Yeah, that's only about 18,000 AN HOUR since jesus was born. All for what? A killing machine of brainwashed thugs.

[shartley]

Originally posted by paintballguy429
dude wtf. i post a song with one word that you don't like. the song is a lot less harmful than the militaristic murderous messages in 1stdeadeyes trashy hick music.

[shartley]

Originally posted by paintballguy429
LOL! 330 billion a year isn't enough when we have people at home starving? Yeah, that's only about 18,000 AN HOUR since jesus was born. All for what? A killing machine of brainwashed thugs.

[paintballguy429]

Originally posted by shartley

I don't know if "in your world" you open your eyes at all, but if you did, you'd realize that none of our freedoms our at stake in Iraq.

We have not fought a single just war since WWII and I do not feel I owe anything to those who have KILLED people for an unjust cause.