Your writing gives your true intentions away
Again, your attempts to dismiss my factual, logical, and reasoned based arguments as "opinion" attempts to put us on equal footing. It doesn't.
One of us is right, and one of us is wrong. I've used logic to prove you wrong. Your rejecting my argument's validity doesn't make it "invalid." You have to do that with a reasoned, logical argument. You failed to do that.
I bring a valid point up.
You missed the point behind my quoting the Marine's wife. You're using a selective subset of the entire universe of military wives. You subsequently used that to support your assumption that "some" troops support the war. There are spouses that don't support the war. But then again, there are spouses that do support the war.
I quoted the Marine wife to show one area your opinion was lacking. She hit the nail right on the head.
It's a no brainer that you believe that my logic is "faulty," and "tainted." You admitted that we were on opposite sides of the political isle. However, you have to PROVE that it's faulty and tainted, not just say that that it's so.
You failed to do that.
I support the war for many reasons. I've explained my other reasons for supporting the war. They have nothing to do with war mongering, they have nothing to do with being a "neo con." They have everything to do with my experience, research, and with what the facts tell me.
Anybody that's listened to our enemies, anybody that's seen our enemy's mindset at work, couldn't, in good conscience, oppose what we're doing there.
When it comes to a deadly entity that doesn't believe in living and let living, I'm all for "killing" all the insurgents who have no intentions of letting the Kool Aid wear off.
Why not?
They believe that we should all be dead. We have two options. We could submit to their brand of radical Islam or get killed. We could also convert that region to something that'll couple with the free market economy.
There's no third or other option.
"Wrong they are there to die to pay in blood and agony to pay a check that the Bush Administation wrote but is unable to cash personally." - Wolfs Den
You don't support the troops. Not with THAT attitude.
Every person that I've talked to, who claimed they supported the troops, never spoke about them this way. This includes the people that identify themselves as liberal, and don't like the President. I didn't see these guys make statements like that about the troops. Simply put, you hate the troops.
The troops are dying for a cause they believe in. They understand that Bush can't be on the front lines fighting the war with them. That's not where our founding fathers intended our Commander in Chief to be... if it weren't practical.
For someone that likes to talk about how our founding fathers intended things to run, you'd understand this.
"You have half right. I do not have animosity towards the basic military grunt. I do have for the old men who sit in Washington and send these men to their deaths for no good reason." - Wolfs Den
The only "half" I see here is you giving me a half truth. You have so much animosity toward the troops that you have a hard time containing it.
After all, why call them grunts? By calling them "grunts," you're implying that they're "stupid," and that they "don't" know any better. To prove that, I'm going to show you something else you've said:
"They are also mostly children and I do not take their blind obedience seriously." - Wolfs den
Not something someone supporting the troops would say.
But, I disagree with you in terms of the reasons they're dying for. The Iraq War is part of a greater war. Our survival as a nation, our survival as western civilization, hinges on our success in Iraq. Many of the "old men" sitting in Washington, who blessed the President's Iraq Plan, were veterans.
For someone that likes to reference the founding fathers on how things should work:
"They think since this is a "democracy" that the government works for us, like the founding fathers actually intended to do." - Wolfs Den
Then you should appreciate why our founding fathers intended for the Commander in Chief to be a CIVILIAN... instead of someone that's in the military that's on the front lines with them... when it isn't practical for him to be there.
Like the rest of the fringe left, you have an animosity for the president.
You hate him for ideological reasons. The troops that you reference as having more balls than Bush? The majority of them have worlds of respect for him, both as a human and as a leader.
I didn't find it surprising that many people expressed interest in leaving the military if Kerry would've won. These are the same guys you claim you support.
As for the first Bush's "pulling" strings for him. Did you realize that people proved those claims wrong? This affected Dan Rather's career.
Yet, you still hold on to the false canard that Bush got into the Guard, thanks to his dad's influence, so that he could avoid Vietnam. Bush fulfilled his guard commitments, then he received an honorable discharge.
Let's see, on one hand, I have you saying that we're "not" going to win the war. On the other hand, we have thousands of troops that could verify that we're actually winning in Iraq.
Who should I believe? Some disgruntled guy going by second hand information, or most the people that have first hand experience of what's going on there?
We're winning in Iraq. We've been winning since we invaded. The surge has worked, and Iraq progress is forging full steam ahead. The Iraqi military is taking over more and more of Iraq's province. We've just turned al Anbar (sp) Province over to them. That was one of the bloodiest regions in Iraq. It's gotten to the point to where we're negotiating with Iraq on an issue that involves reducing our forces over there.
Our victory in Iraq plan is still going. We're winning in Iraq. I highly doubt that you'd disagree with that assessment if you went over there and saw for yourself what's going on. I've lost count of how many anti war democrats have came back from Iraq who've admitted that we're progressing in Iraq.
You speak of damage that Bush has done.
What damage? His foreign, domestic, and economic policies were PRECISELY what we needed to do. If you want to look at damage, and how long it'll take to correct that damage, look to the 8 years of the Clinton Administration. Their foreign policy decisions contributed to creating the conditions that we're trying to deal with now.
No, you DON'T support the troops.
First, if you don't support the war, you don't support the troops. I've argued that effectively, and you've failed to counter it. None of your "evidence" of troop support made sense. They didn't pass the logic test.
You don't support the troops if you don't support their victory. Suggesting that we just pull out and let Iraq sort it out? That's suggesting that we deny the troops a chance to finish the job.
Just as you'll continue to claim that you support the troops, but not the war, I'll continue to counter your claims and prove otherwise. I know that you're not trying to convince me of anything. You're just trying to convince yourself of something you intellectually know isn't true.
Logic is logic, regardless of what you hold in your heart and mind. For example, it doesn't make sense to see you as someone that supports the troops when you can't even withhold your animosity for them.
Updated to add:
Shortly under a year after we had this debate, I was in Iraq. We won the Iraq War with a straight cut victory. Democracy is well on its way to being stable, and they've made exponential progress since we had this debate.
You said:
Again, your opinion is stated as fact. I reject it and the validity of it. It is always possible to find someone who will support your statement regarding military wives supporting the wae. There are also those who feel the opposite.
I believe your logic to be faulty and tainted my the war-mongering mindset of a typical neo-con. If we can't get them to "obey" our rules. We simply kill them and hope the next group will be threatened into submission.
"So, if you support their safely coming home, then you have to support the war. That's what the troops are there for" Wrong they are there to die to pay in blood and agony to pay a check that the Bush Administation wrote but is unable to cash personally.
"I could tell by your post that you have an underlying animosity against the military, and against the Bush Administration" You have half right. I do not have animosity towards the basic military grunt. I do have for the old men who sit in Washington and send these men to their deaths for no good reason. I have a world of animosity towards Bush. I do not respect him as a man, a human being, for a "leader" and I use the term very loosely. Any of the boys serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have more balls then their Commander in Chief ever showed. His daddy pulled strings to get him in the National Guard instead of going to Nam and he still didn't fulfill his obligation. I do not agree with John McCain's politics, but I can respect him as a man. Something I could not go with "W"
As for the only way to get them home safely being to win the war. We are NOT going to win the war unless we nuke the damned place and start over. The other way to bring them home safe is just to do it and let Iraq fall on it's face. If Bush had have attacked North Korea, I might have agreed. If he attacted Iran, or if Carter had in 1979, I would have supported that.
It's going to take a decade or more to undo the damage that this adminisration has done.
I still say I support the troops and not the war and I will continue to say so and feel so in spite of your take on things. I am not trying to convince you because in reality your opinion means naught. I know what is in my heart and mind and your "logic" is just, again, your opinion.
Again, your attempts to dismiss my factual, logical, and reasoned based arguments as "opinion" attempts to put us on equal footing. It doesn't.
One of us is right, and one of us is wrong. I've used logic to prove you wrong. Your rejecting my argument's validity doesn't make it "invalid." You have to do that with a reasoned, logical argument. You failed to do that.
I bring a valid point up.
You missed the point behind my quoting the Marine's wife. You're using a selective subset of the entire universe of military wives. You subsequently used that to support your assumption that "some" troops support the war. There are spouses that don't support the war. But then again, there are spouses that do support the war.
I quoted the Marine wife to show one area your opinion was lacking. She hit the nail right on the head.
It's a no brainer that you believe that my logic is "faulty," and "tainted." You admitted that we were on opposite sides of the political isle. However, you have to PROVE that it's faulty and tainted, not just say that that it's so.
You failed to do that.
I support the war for many reasons. I've explained my other reasons for supporting the war. They have nothing to do with war mongering, they have nothing to do with being a "neo con." They have everything to do with my experience, research, and with what the facts tell me.
Anybody that's listened to our enemies, anybody that's seen our enemy's mindset at work, couldn't, in good conscience, oppose what we're doing there.
When it comes to a deadly entity that doesn't believe in living and let living, I'm all for "killing" all the insurgents who have no intentions of letting the Kool Aid wear off.
Why not?
They believe that we should all be dead. We have two options. We could submit to their brand of radical Islam or get killed. We could also convert that region to something that'll couple with the free market economy.
There's no third or other option.
"Wrong they are there to die to pay in blood and agony to pay a check that the Bush Administation wrote but is unable to cash personally." - Wolfs Den
You don't support the troops. Not with THAT attitude.
Every person that I've talked to, who claimed they supported the troops, never spoke about them this way. This includes the people that identify themselves as liberal, and don't like the President. I didn't see these guys make statements like that about the troops. Simply put, you hate the troops.
The troops are dying for a cause they believe in. They understand that Bush can't be on the front lines fighting the war with them. That's not where our founding fathers intended our Commander in Chief to be... if it weren't practical.
For someone that likes to talk about how our founding fathers intended things to run, you'd understand this.
"You have half right. I do not have animosity towards the basic military grunt. I do have for the old men who sit in Washington and send these men to their deaths for no good reason." - Wolfs Den
The only "half" I see here is you giving me a half truth. You have so much animosity toward the troops that you have a hard time containing it.
After all, why call them grunts? By calling them "grunts," you're implying that they're "stupid," and that they "don't" know any better. To prove that, I'm going to show you something else you've said:
"They are also mostly children and I do not take their blind obedience seriously." - Wolfs den
Not something someone supporting the troops would say.
But, I disagree with you in terms of the reasons they're dying for. The Iraq War is part of a greater war. Our survival as a nation, our survival as western civilization, hinges on our success in Iraq. Many of the "old men" sitting in Washington, who blessed the President's Iraq Plan, were veterans.
For someone that likes to reference the founding fathers on how things should work:
"They think since this is a "democracy" that the government works for us, like the founding fathers actually intended to do." - Wolfs Den
Then you should appreciate why our founding fathers intended for the Commander in Chief to be a CIVILIAN... instead of someone that's in the military that's on the front lines with them... when it isn't practical for him to be there.
Like the rest of the fringe left, you have an animosity for the president.
You hate him for ideological reasons. The troops that you reference as having more balls than Bush? The majority of them have worlds of respect for him, both as a human and as a leader.
I didn't find it surprising that many people expressed interest in leaving the military if Kerry would've won. These are the same guys you claim you support.
As for the first Bush's "pulling" strings for him. Did you realize that people proved those claims wrong? This affected Dan Rather's career.
Yet, you still hold on to the false canard that Bush got into the Guard, thanks to his dad's influence, so that he could avoid Vietnam. Bush fulfilled his guard commitments, then he received an honorable discharge.
Let's see, on one hand, I have you saying that we're "not" going to win the war. On the other hand, we have thousands of troops that could verify that we're actually winning in Iraq.
Who should I believe? Some disgruntled guy going by second hand information, or most the people that have first hand experience of what's going on there?
We're winning in Iraq. We've been winning since we invaded. The surge has worked, and Iraq progress is forging full steam ahead. The Iraqi military is taking over more and more of Iraq's province. We've just turned al Anbar (sp) Province over to them. That was one of the bloodiest regions in Iraq. It's gotten to the point to where we're negotiating with Iraq on an issue that involves reducing our forces over there.
Our victory in Iraq plan is still going. We're winning in Iraq. I highly doubt that you'd disagree with that assessment if you went over there and saw for yourself what's going on. I've lost count of how many anti war democrats have came back from Iraq who've admitted that we're progressing in Iraq.
You speak of damage that Bush has done.
What damage? His foreign, domestic, and economic policies were PRECISELY what we needed to do. If you want to look at damage, and how long it'll take to correct that damage, look to the 8 years of the Clinton Administration. Their foreign policy decisions contributed to creating the conditions that we're trying to deal with now.
No, you DON'T support the troops.
First, if you don't support the war, you don't support the troops. I've argued that effectively, and you've failed to counter it. None of your "evidence" of troop support made sense. They didn't pass the logic test.
You don't support the troops if you don't support their victory. Suggesting that we just pull out and let Iraq sort it out? That's suggesting that we deny the troops a chance to finish the job.
Just as you'll continue to claim that you support the troops, but not the war, I'll continue to counter your claims and prove otherwise. I know that you're not trying to convince me of anything. You're just trying to convince yourself of something you intellectually know isn't true.
Logic is logic, regardless of what you hold in your heart and mind. For example, it doesn't make sense to see you as someone that supports the troops when you can't even withhold your animosity for them.
Updated to add:
Shortly under a year after we had this debate, I was in Iraq. We won the Iraq War with a straight cut victory. Democracy is well on its way to being stable, and they've made exponential progress since we had this debate.
You said:
Again, your opinion is stated as fact. I reject it and the validity of it. It is always possible to find someone who will support your statement regarding military wives supporting the wae. There are also those who feel the opposite.
I believe your logic to be faulty and tainted my the war-mongering mindset of a typical neo-con. If we can't get them to "obey" our rules. We simply kill them and hope the next group will be threatened into submission.
"So, if you support their safely coming home, then you have to support the war. That's what the troops are there for" Wrong they are there to die to pay in blood and agony to pay a check that the Bush Administation wrote but is unable to cash personally.
"I could tell by your post that you have an underlying animosity against the military, and against the Bush Administration" You have half right. I do not have animosity towards the basic military grunt. I do have for the old men who sit in Washington and send these men to their deaths for no good reason. I have a world of animosity towards Bush. I do not respect him as a man, a human being, for a "leader" and I use the term very loosely. Any of the boys serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have more balls then their Commander in Chief ever showed. His daddy pulled strings to get him in the National Guard instead of going to Nam and he still didn't fulfill his obligation. I do not agree with John McCain's politics, but I can respect him as a man. Something I could not go with "W"
As for the only way to get them home safely being to win the war. We are NOT going to win the war unless we nuke the damned place and start over. The other way to bring them home safe is just to do it and let Iraq fall on it's face. If Bush had have attacked North Korea, I might have agreed. If he attacted Iran, or if Carter had in 1979, I would have supported that.
It's going to take a decade or more to undo the damage that this adminisration has done.
I still say I support the troops and not the war and I will continue to say so and feel so in spite of your take on things. I am not trying to convince you because in reality your opinion means naught. I know what is in my heart and mind and your "logic" is just, again, your opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment