Comments on: God and Country

By: dakine

dakine — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:02:40 +0000

RetFireman, do you just cut and paste the same tired stuff over and over again in every thread? Get some new material. BTW, read your last two posts against one another and tell me that you don’t come off as just a little bit hypocritical.

By: RetFireman

RetFireman — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 23:24:47 +0000

No, I have no comprehension problem, and your words are forever emblazoned on the net for all to see. There is nothing wild or emotional nor irrational in my postings. If it strikes you as such, then it strikes at the very heart of your beliefs, and it stings you asa it is truth. You do not like having the mirror placed so close to your nose, but your denials mean nothing when your words say so much. Everyone here has seen you for what you are and what you support. You do not support the troops, you do not support the country as far as winning this war and your own words actively encourage our enemies to win against us. If you disagree, then I suggest you start changing the way in which you word your thoughs, otherwise they stand as such. Your Liberal and Left-Wing diatribes, however, speak volumes on the fact that you do indeed, represent all that I have said and more, and your petty atempts at insults roll off me as if I were coated in teflon.

Have a nice day and return to underneath your bridge.

By: dakine

dakine — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:01:32 +0000

RetFireman, you have a reading comprehension problem. Nothing in you’re wildly emotional and irrational post relates in any way to anything I’ve written on this subject. You need help.

By: RetFireman

RetFireman — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 06:18:17 +0000

That’s the problem with the likes of you, dakine, buck and the other little wannabe trolls here. You seem to confuse dissent with sedition all the time. There is a distinct difference between not agreeing with the war and actively helping the enemy and helping to guarantee that we lose the war to satisfy your own sense of self-righteousness. The fact that you would support those that come out and protest using signs that say “Bush is hitler” and dery GitMo as being a den of torture is proof of that.

You can be against this war. You can speak out against this war, but we will never allow ANYONE to work towards our defeat or to help our enemies kill or harm our fellow citizens whether they be civillian or military…EVER.

Get that through your thick skulls.

By: Michelle Malkin - God and Country « Kevin’s Korner

Michelle Malkin - God and Country « Kevin’s Korner — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:48:27 +0000

[...] Michelle Malkin – God and Country 19 November 2007 Posted by schulkekj in News. trackback Michelle Malkin posted an interesting promotion of a troop movie celebrating America this past weekend. It is called God and Country. Catch her post here. [...]

By: TXRose

TXRose — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:53:20 +0000

Let’s grow up. Do you think Roosevelt got us into WWII
because he wanted to save the victims of the Nazis or
because he was angry at Japan? It was a political
necessity at the time. He didn’t believe the death camps were happening and apparently knew that Japan had designs on the US.
I listened to the MSM and pols (Both sides of the aisle
yelling, “When is President Bush going to finish the
job that his father started in Iraq?”
This went on day after day, even on FNC and that
paragon (sic) of manhood, Geraldo was one of the
loudest.
You apparently supported Slick Willy’s war, which
we’re still fighting, because I would bet you haven’t
been writing this stuff about Kosovo.
(One of my son’s friends was there when WC showed up trying to act as if they were all members
of the same club and that he was never a draft
dodger. Needless to say, they were all pretty
unimpressed.)

By: dakine

dakine — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:16:16 +0000

Jim M., you had me right up until the last paragraph. The civilian leadership (i.e., the President, his advisors and Congress) uses the military as an instrument to advance a particular foreign policy strategy/objective. There’s never going to be 100% consensus among decision makers, the military leadership, pundits and the populace in general regarding foreign policy strategies and the means used to achieve them. Hell, two of my best buddies are about as “bad-ass hard” as warriors can be and fought in the actual “war” part of this deal, and they both think (and thought from the beginning) that the Bush foreign policy in Iraq is a FUBAR cluster. They did their duty though, and fought with honor and integrity. You seem to believe, however, that by thinking the Iraq strategy was misguided, that my buddies are somehow not supporting themselves and their fellow warriors? Doesn’t make sense to me, and I don’t see the disconnect to which you refer. Good and interesting post though.

By: Jim M.

Jim M. — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:41:34 +0000

That position only solidifies the view that the man is incapable of any rational thought.

McVeigh was a US Citizen. Bin Laden is not a US citizen.

McVeigh was subject to the criminal laws of the US as a US citizen. Bin Laden is out of the reach of US criminal laws. Recall that he was indicted in an unlrelated case. And it ended there.

Countries with whom we have diplomatic relations may extradite individuals accused of breaking US laws. There were no diplomatic relations with Afghanistan at the time, that is until we used the military to allow Afghanistan to establish a government.

Bin Laden controlled the Taliban through financial support. And the Taliban were well aware of his intentions to attack the US prior to 9/11.

Now let’s go to Iraq. The fact that never gets raised is that after the first Gulf War, Saddam was required to account for his WMD. The UN DOCUMENTED stockpiles of chemical and biological agents in the hundreds of tons and equipment that could be used in the manufacture of nuclear material (aluminum tubing comes to mind). WHile these stockpiles were documented, there was never any record of where they went. Were they destroyed? Were they buried? Were they moved to another country?

Saddam apparently told one of his handlers before his execution that he had no nuclear material, but that he planned to start making it once sanctions were lifted. Let’s assume that we can believe a man who never told the truth. He was not going to start from scratch. Go back to what happened to the equipment.

And all those “commercial flights” and Russian convoys that were dispatched from Iraq to Syria right before the US action against Iraq? What were they carrying?

I cannot see how someone can say they are for the troops but not for the war. It is a contradiction in terms. The message you are sending to the troops is that the cause they are fighting and dying for is bad. That they are hurting the very country they have sworn to defend. Kind of like a family member saying that they love their relative who just killed someone’s family, but don’t support their actions.

By: swj719AWG

swj719AWG — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 04:04:35 +0000

I actually did not support the strike on Afghanistan. I felt that it could have been handled in a criminal sense, rather then bomb a destitute culture.

To give an analogy, we certainly didn’t carpet bomb Minnesota or wherever McVeigh was after Oklahoma City. I feel that we would have already gotten Bin Laden (remember him?) if we handled it similarly.

You are clearly insane. You draw a similarity between attacking a country that is in the literal pocket of AQ, who for all intents and purposes is AQ, and a pair of nutjobs who blew up a federal building?

Allow me to attempt to explain to you just one portion of your insanity.

If McVaugh were found and/or caught in Minnisota, he would have been turned overto the feds. Do you actually think, for one single moment, that the Taliban would have done the same? Do you think there is any chance in hell that they would have handed over to use OBL or any of the people we found/killed since we went in there?

There are men and women serving this country, shedding their blood so that you can enjoy the freedom to liken a movie which speaks well of our fighting men and women – one that shows them in a positive light – to one which takes a handful of instances, and does it’s absolute best to try and convince the viewer that it is the norm.

You sit there, blissfully unaware at how foolish and suicidal your dreams of sitting down and just talking with the very people who would show up to that meeting wearing an exploding vest just to kill ONE of us. You sit there in such a state because of every single Soldier, Marine, Sailor and Airman that has served this country, living or dead.

Especially dead.

So before you sit there and tell me that you “support our troops”, how about you go walk into a bar right next to a military base and repeat every single thing you’ve said here.

When you get out of the ICU, let me know how much they appriciated your “support”.

By: TXRose

TXRose — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:24:00 +0000

He won’t ever get it, Donna, but he thought he
was doing missionary work among the savages. He
was going to dazzle us with his brilliance and turn
every one of us in sobbing penitents. We would be
immediately converted to his way of thinking and he
could go back to wherever and boast of his success!
No. I’m not going to see the warped hollowood versions of their war movies. Yes. I never ever go to
movies but I will purchase umpteen dozen dvds as
gifts for people I care about.

By: donnab13

donnab13 — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:21:01 +0000

Oh one last comment WS
Please do not feed me the line that you support the troops. If this was true, you would have allowed those honorable men and women their ONE moment of shining in a simple thread on a simple day. However you could not even do that.
Tell it to someone who wont see through you.
Goodnight

By: donnab13

donnab13 — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:14:45 +0000

Watershed
Freedom comes with great responsibility.
Now we all know how you feel about the war. It would have been more responsible to voice it in an appropriate forum or post. However, you turned this into a thread about your personal views, did not stay on topic, and ranted on when asked politely no less to allow the thread to be as it was intended. This thread was NOT about you. But you turned it into just that. Congrats!
Thanks for taking what should have been a celebration and fixating on putting your negative spin on it.
We get it!!! We get how you feel!!!!
We got it the first couple of posts you made.
To be honest I really dont know why I bothered with this post. Because from what you’ve shown of yourself …you wont get it.

By: TXRose

TXRose — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:01:58 +0000

Had watershed been born an “unworthy” in
Afghanistan he might have had an entirely different
take on the way the Taliban treats women. But then, I
keep remembering code pink and sally field, etc. All
of these people seem to be entirely comfortable with
the idea that they and their children et al could all be
saying Allah Akbar and by God meaning it or else. Or
do they think they are all so gosh darned cute and nice
that when the terrorists take over in their world, that
us ugly old conservatives are the only ones they will
come after. All of the liberals will be holding hands,
singing kumbaya and inviting them to a Peace In and they will just melt in all of this “Milk of Human
Kindness” that only liberals can practice.

By: backwoods conservative

backwoods conservative — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 02:46:57 +0000

So you would have handled it in a criminal sense. Who would you have sent to Afghanistan to take Bin Laden into custody? And do you think the Taliban would have allowed it?

Crimes committed inside the US are handled by the cops. Acts of war by foreign enemies are handled by the military.

The “destitute culture” you spoke of allowed Al Quaida to use Afghanistan as a base of operations.

Also, the notion that our problem with terrorists begins and ends with Bin Laden is shortsighted. The violent and intolerant form of religious beliefs which breeds terrorism is widespread and will not be eliminated by taking out any one person or group of people. President Bush told the country after 9-11 that we were in for a long struggle against a shadowy enemy. He was right.

By: feebiebabe

feebiebabe — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 02:37:33 +0000

On November 18th, 2007 at 9:06 pm, watershed said:
#166

I actually did not support the strike on Afghanistan. I felt that it could have been handled in a criminal sense, rather then bomb a destitute culture.

To give an analogy, we certainly didn’t carpet bomb Minnesota or wherever McVeigh was after Oklahoma City. I feel that we would have already gotten Bin Laden (remember him?) if we handled it similarly.

Absurd analogy…