| - DIHQ'S CELEBRITY BOXING POLL -> Not that it makes Pat Tillman any less a hero, but | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: Not that it makes Pat Tillman any less a hero, but |
| Posted By: wiseguyly69 Posted On: May 29, 2004 Views: 543 | Not that it makes Pat Tillman any less a hero, but http://www.boston.com/dailynews/150/nation/Army_Ex_NFL_player_Pat_Tillma n:.shtml War has many ugly faces; this is just another. Wiseguy |
| Posted By: Rough Posted On: May 29, 2004 Views: 537 | "Friendly Fire" Such a nice, "non threatening" term. I wonder who came up with it? Probably the same guy who changed "shellshock" into "post traumatic stress disorder". |
| Posted By: legion Posted On: May 30, 2004 Views: 531 | RE: Not that it makes Pat Tillman any less a hero, but "Today is a good day to die" - Klingon proverb Another fallacy I hear repeated all the time by the Stepford fools as if it's written in stone, all that "the Greatest Generation" horseshiate. Greatest at what? Mass murder? Genocide? Atrocities on a scale never before seen in the history of the worldZ? The "Greatest Generation" gave rise to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, they gave us the gas chambers at Auschwitz and then to top that they gave us the Atomic bomb, and then they used it! For the first time in history the vast majority of victims of a war were civilians. Bravo! Well done! Greatest, my arse. Then my generation. Buncha galdamned hippies. What did they give us? Peace and love? Drugs and sex and rock and roll? Civil rights? Women's rights? Bloody commie tree huggers went and ruined the fun in Vietnam. Right I forgot, peacetime, unlike war, doesn't make for glorious tales of heroic bullshiate. If you're a Klingon, that is. |
| Posted By: alfonsothefan Posted On: May 30, 2004 Views: 528 | RE: Not that it makes Pat Tillman any less a hero, but Your problem is that you still cannot differentiate between crucial differences; don't feel bad, most Americans cannot, either. To be attacked and to fight back for your freedom is a noble cause. Most everyone seems to agree with this and that is why almost all of the USA and the West were behind the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Now, I could say that we should never, EVER, strike preemptively, ala Iraq and ala Vietnam. Here, however, the waters get murkey. Iraq, several reports have concluded, did indeed have connections to 9/11. Hussein did, indeed, violate UN mandates. Vietnam? There were SEATO agreements that the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Thailand and South Korea were signatories to. However, there are valid arguments to be made not to strike but to negotiate and so forth. But, the "greatest generation" (yeah, I get a little tired of this tripe myself) also preemptively struck Germany. Why? Germany never attacked the U.S. Germany never threatened the U.S. German Americans did join the German Bund and so forth, but...so what? Germany never stole ships or planes. Still, most historians felt it wise and prudent to declare war on Germany in 1941, even though it was Japan who had attacked us. It was the connections between Japan and Germany and Italy that made America an enemy of the axis. Why & how that was so different from Iraq and the 'War on Terror' now is, truly, puzzling to me. Anyway, these are several crucial points & I have to tell you that it was the old Yale clergyman (Coglin? can't remember) who perhaps said it best: "I'd rather see free love than costly hate". Kind of trite & bumper stcker shtickish but he had an angle we should consider. atf |
| Posted By: Dionysus Posted On: May 30, 2004 Views: 524 | War spin My favourite war spin word is one that originated in the Gulf War: 'SORTIE' Or as they call it in more critical circles: 'Bombing killing bastard raid" Dio |
| Posted By: legion Posted On: May 30, 2004 Views: 519 | RE: Not that it makes Pat Tillman any less a hero, but ...and another thing. Old men should never be allowed to send young men to fight wars in their place. Nor women either. I agree with Harry Browne. Only the people doing the fighting and dying should be the ones to decide whether or not the 'cause' is just, and worthy of sacrafice of their lives. Not some old Bumsfeld geezer. And I don't care if they fought in a war when they were young or not. That was then, this is now. Different time, different war. Only those who kill and get killed should decide. We should just do away with war altogether. From now on, anybody makes any war on anybody else for any reason gets nuked straight away. Scrubbed right out of the gene pool, we'll call it the 'Darwin' nuke. Humanity must evolve and we can't wait around forever for these religious fundy fringe lunatics to catch up to the herd. |
| Posted By: Rough Posted On: May 30, 2004 Views: 512 | Rumsfeld The Secretary of Defense actually NEVER served. He was a chickenhawk..just like Cheney and Bush. Dubya going AWOL from the Texas National Guard does not count as serving your country. His rich daddy got him out of going where any bullets were flying in 'Nam. His sorry arse was never anywhere near Southeast Asia. I had just assumed that Rumsfeld had served in the armed forces. Imagine my surprise when I found out he hadn't,about a month or so ago. Actually, the title is all wrong...I'm going to start calling Rumsfeld the Secretary of Offense..it makes better sense. Here's an idea..a defense department that actually DEFENDS us, instead of going halfway around the world to start wars in places we have no business being, ensuring that this "War on Terror" will continue for generations to come. A defense department that actually sets up border patrols, provides ironclad airline and port security. A true "defense" department that protects the people from another horrific attack, instead of one that continues to shake up hornets' nests in the Middle East. I'm waiting for Killah's review of "Day AFter Tomorrow". We Americans can't seem to get enough of watching iconic landmarks getting whipped off the map. I wonder why that is...seriously. I would think that we would have had enough of it in real life. The only film I want to see this summer is "Farenheit 9/11". Moore should have a distribution deal wrapped up by july 4th. Perfect way to celebrate Independence Day...slamming our crummy President. DIO/ROUGH 2004 |
| Posted By: Rough Posted On: May 30, 2004 Views: 507 | WW2 vs. The Iraq War Heya Fonz! I meant to talk about your post, earlier. There are indeed parallels between the preemptive strikes of WW2 vs. today. You could certainly argue that since Germany had never attacked the US, there was technically no justification for our involvement in the European Arena. Japan (like al Queda) had blatantly attacked the US....Germany (like Iraq) had not, and may never have! For me, I have to say that WW2 was really about the only war I could justify us being in. Hitler had taken practically all of Europe and if we hadn't thrown into the fracas when we did, there's no doubt Hitler would have taken the entire continent. Now, call me crazy, but I really believe that if Hitler would have conquered all of Europe, it would have only been a matter of time before he tried to conquer the US, as well. There would have been no stopping him and you would have eventually seen SS Troops marching through NY and Washington, just like in Paris! I really think that we managed to turn the tide at the most crucial of moments, before all of Europe fell under fascist control. I hate the thought of any conflict, but insofar as Hitler goes, if we hadn't thrown in with the Allies..BEST case scenario, all of Europe becomes a fascist continent..WORST case scenario, Hitler and the Axis Powers conquer the globe and Hitler becomes Emperor of the World! Why can't I justify Iraq, when you look at it in the context of the "implied threat" that Germany posed to us in WW2? Basically because Saddam Hussein was no Adolph Hitler. He may have been as intrinsically evil as Adolph and, in his own twisted little mind, he may have seen himself as a modern day Hitler, but..let me say again, Saddam was no Hitler (sort of like Quayle was no JFK). Saddam has NEVER been anywhere near the brink of literally conquering the world. Hell, Saddam couldn't even kick Iran's arse...he couldn't even become Hitler of the MIddle East! Hitler was appeased in much the same way that Hussein was, the big difference being that Hussein was contained..and we would have been able to keep him contained. The ironic thing is that, as horrible as Hussein was, things had generally calmed down for the first time in years! The whole "tribal mentality" is something that we've never really understood over here. Hussein was a true Iraqi, through and through, and he had that brutal mentality in spades. When we invaded and popped the lid on all that simmering tribal rivalry, we only traded one brand of death and destruction for another. We purposely, and unecessarily spread the "War on Terror" into Iraq and, so far, about 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have lost their lives because of it. There are those who say that it's better to fight this war over there, instead of here. But these people surely aren't considering all these Iraqi civilians lost. No significant WMDs in at least ten years, no credible links to al Queda and absolutely no links to 9/11. Saddam was no threat to us and was no "gathering threat". He had abused his own people, but why is it our place to "save the world". Save the world for Cheney's wallet is more like it. The notion that Iraq will adopt democracy is a nice idea for a simpleton like Bushie to trowel out. But, let's be honest, it's totally unrealistic, at least in the short term future. For starters, they have no concept of what it is and, secondly, I don't even know if they really want a democracy...at least the kind we have. Lastly, if you are talking about a "US style democracy" (because if you're going to dream, dream big)..you must have a modern, industrialized nation for your little "democratic experiment". Which means we've got A LOT of work to do, to put it lightly. It means spending trillions to basically rebuild the entire country, taking into account that the war is continually destroying parts of it! Of course, there's another parallel..rebuilding Iraq, just like we did throughout Europe and Japan, in WW2. Ahhh WAR...what a racket! DIO/ROUGH 2004 |
| Posted By: alfonsothefan Posted On: May 31, 2004 Views: 497 | RE: Saddam was/is no Hitler? Hmmm...actually, according to the troops who have him in custody, the guy still thinks he's in charge. Oh no, this guy is surely a Hitler wanna-be and we are better off without him or his sons Goofy and Oodie. BTW, I believe Rumsfeld was an ex-marine officer and had servdin the Korean War. Anyway, I'm glad you guys on the liberal side think it's now cool to have been in a war & such. Quite a change from the 'Bubba years' when being a draft dodger qualified you for Commander in Chief. atf |
| Posted By: legion Posted On: May 31, 2004 Views: 490 | RE: Not that it makes Pat Tillman any less a hero, but No no Rough, don't let Fonzie bait you into these idiot arguments, his 'facts' are presumption surrounded by supposition inside a guess. You never 'pre-emptively' invaded Germany. Hitler declared war on the United STates, which was a really stupid thing to do, but he did it anyway, and he also went and declared war on the Soviet Union which was another really stupid thing to do. False analogy. Everything that proceeds from this is based upon the initial error which just produces more error, or as Fonzie calls it, his 'point of view'. I have no respect for the military, I was just sayin' no way old men should be able to use young men and poor folk for their wars. Due to modern medicine, antiseptics, improved nutrition, we humans are living longer lives than ever before in human history. Only 100 years ago the average person lived to be 50 years old. That's why a 'generation' is considered to be 20 to 40 years. We got too many old guys who refuse to die, hanging around the tribe, getting in the way, annoying us all the time with their stupid old fashioned notions. That's why our society is all farked up right now. Too many Elders, not enough Indians. That's the real reason for war. Not all that hogwash Fonzie dribbled. |
| Posted By: Bear Posted On: May 31, 2004 Views: 485 | RE: Not that it makes Pat Tillman any less a hero, but Hey Fonz, you make a good point regarding our "pre-emptive" strike on Germany during WWII, but here's a clarification. FDR and his staff were trying to figure out HOW to justify declaring war on Germany after Pearl Harbor. They could stop figuring two days later when Hitler made the decision for them and Germany declard war on the US. |
| Posted By: alfonsothefan Posted On: May 31, 2004 Views: 473 | RE: Not that it makes Pat Tillman any less a hero, but Correct you are to a point, Bear, but I was simply trying to show the lack of consistency amoungst thse on the left: true, Germany 'Declared war' on the USA, but, near as I can figure, the fighting was done in France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Austria and North Africa, not Pennsylvania, New York or D.C. (ala 9/11/01) The fact is, the strikes were, technically, 'pre-emptive' (hell, even the BBC and PBS have acknowledged this). So you tell me that Germany 'Declared war on the USA'. So? FYI, so did Kim Jung Il, as I recall, in a speech to the North Korean people. Does that mean we should invade North Korea? Also, I call your attention to the lack of consistency concerning Legionairre Disease, who -- along with Barb Hoffa -- seemed to blame the USA more than the al Qaeda who attacked us on 9/11. Too, al Qaeda appear more and more to have had solid connections with the Saddam Hussein regime. Consistency appears a distant second to some folks' blind hatred of Bush, imho. Yeah, the neo-cons have been in control & I don't like them, but they beat Lurch & Co., hands down. "Yes, I did vote against that bill right after I voted for it..." Lurch Kerry, 2004 "Yes, we were offered Osama bin Laden by the Sudanese in 1998, but we had nothing on him, so they turned him loose & he ended up in Afghanistan, as you know..." Combat Bill Clinton, 2004 btw, the remainder of the "classified" PNB paper of 8/6/01 -- the part the Democrats don't ever mention (they always prattle on about the 'bin Laden warning') -- reads that "there appears to be connections between bin Laden and Iraq." & leege Don't even try to say I'm not consistent & accurate, lesion. I'm not the one who cried because the US fiddled around entering WWII, then rags on all those who have fought in a war. You guys have a blind hatred and it's affecting your judgements. I remember well your diatribes against the US on Hoffa's bored, so don't even go on about 'pre-emptive strikes.' atf |
| Posted By: Rough Posted On: May 31, 2004 Views: 465 | You're right, Leege and Bear Germany did indeed declare war on us, which certainly made it easier for us to throw our hats in there, and make our involvement a little "less preeemptive", I suppose. Iraq, on the other hand, never declared war on us. North Korea basically said last year "We have nukes and if the US invades, the West Coast is toast." Hmmm, sounded like a threat to me, whether Kim meant it or not. The N. Koreans have NUKES and WE KNOW they have nukes, unlike Iraq which had..what was it..some sarin? So, following the chain of logic, N. Korea was certainly a bigger threat than thug dictator Hussein ever was. Iraq was just "better business"..$$$$...and probably less "messy", you know with all that fallout, nuclear winter, etc! Naah, you put Saddam, Uday and Qusay toghether and you still wouldn't match old Adolph. I still say that if a few more turns in history had gone his way, the man would have taken over the world. Although, he was quite stupid for biting off more than he could chew, too early, by throwing down the gauntlet to the US. In that sense, Saddam had a similar mentality and was stupid for tweaking his nose at our li'l cowboy in the White House, especially in light of the fact that Saddy tried to ice his daddy. YOU JUST DON'T DO THAT TO A DUDE FROM TEXAS, I'm tellin' ya! I actually heard about Rumsfeld never serving several weeks ago, and it surprised the hell out of me! You just ASSUME that the Secretary of Defense had served and MAYBE even fought in a war. Seems reasonable, doesn't it? Shows you how naive I am, I guess. I doubt if Donny could win at a game of Battleship! Big time Chickenhawk. Insofar as Clinton v. Bush and 'Nam...Honestly, I'll always have more respect for Clinton for doing what he did. He knew it was a BS war. Needless to say, he didn't have the luxury of a rich dad. The way Bush "dodged" was a lot sneakier. Just like anyone who fled to Canada, the point was to get out of going where the bullets were flying and Bush knew this. The fact that a man who went AWOL from the Texas National Guard can be critical of a man who DID SERVE and still has shrapnel in him is appalling. I'm not crazy about Kerry either, but Bushie's cronies have got a lot of nerve bringing up anyone's service record. It's funny how NO ONE in the Texas National Guard seems to really remember Bush. I wonder why? Maybe because he was hardly there! It was probably during his beer swigging, cocaine snorting days, before he "found Jesus" (I know Jesus must have been thrilled). I loved it when they ever so boldly released those Bushie service records and about HALF the shiat was blacked out! Just brilliant. Clinton v. Bush on terrorism. Well, Clinton was the one responsible for modernizing our anti terror network...increasing spending 300%. He almost had Osama on several occassions and came closer than Bush ever has, and this was before there was ANY urgency to catch him. Remember that BEFORE 9/11, most American people didn't have a clue who Osama bin Laden was and there was NO public outcry to capture or kill him. It took the most horrific terror attacks in human history to put bin Laden on the front burner and within everyone's sights. Three years since 9/11 and still no bin Laden? NO excuse for that. No one could have predicted 9/11 and Clinton did all that he could in the context of the times, probably MORE than most would have, truth be told. Bush actually lost valuable time and resources when he decided to go in and unecessarily retool a lot of the anti terror apparatus before 9/11 took place. And since 9/11 did happen well into Bush's watch, I blame his shortcomings a lot more than I do Clinton's. Bushie's guys did have the briefing in summer 2001 titled "Osama bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the US". Of course, a bin Laden capture carries very little weight at all now. Al Queda and the other extremists have been so empowered by Bushie's war mongering in the Middle East, we're going to be dealing with an ever growing anti Western movement basically from now on. Hasn't bin Laden seemed like a sort of phantom figure, or boogey man, through all this, anyhow? Senile Rumsfeld told the West Point grads the other day that, "We are closer to the beginning of the 'War on Terror' than we are the end". Hell, we're not even out of the gate! We are going to be living in a state of perpetual warfare, from now on. Just like "1984"! COOL!! Once a "key battle" in the war is finished, we move the warfront elsewhere, set up shop, and tick off more extremists. We'll be ensuring huge profits for fatcat war profiteers like Cheney for YEARS to come! You see, now these rich slobs won't have to wait ten or twenty years for some big war to come along. This "new age" of perpetual warfare, where you will NEVER be able to "kill 'em all" or sign any peace treaties with anyone, guarantees the money will be constantly rolling in! Like I've said before, Bush probably isn't a bad guy. His biggest weakness is the fact that he's a simpleton and so easily manipulated by the truly dangerous people in his administration. And we'll NEVER go after the ones who were probably really behind 9/11. I'm talking about the true "untouchables" in the world...the Saudis! They want to see us brought down as much as anyone, but have always gotten carte blanche from the entire oil thirsty Bush clan. Lest we forget, practically all of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. DUH! They're like the mafia, and I'm quite sure that some legitimate al Queda ties are only one of many secrets the Saudi government prefers to keep buried in the ever shifting sands. If you REALLY traced the funding for so many of these attacks, I'd bet you it would go right back to the filthy oil rich Saudi government. I've never heard any compelling evidence whatsoever of any legitimate al Queda link to Hussein's regime. Oh, al Queda operatives have poured in there after the invasion, now that the borders are wide open, as it's become a shooting gallery for US troops and innocent Iraqis. But that's another case of "self fulfilling prophecy". Again, not trying to tick anyone off and be overtly political. I honestly believe everyting I put down and don't think I'm being unreasonable! (Ahem) On a MUCH LIGHTER NOTE...I saw "Shrek 2" today!! Man, what a funny movie! Better than the first one, I thought. I laughed til I cried and I haven't done that in ages! I'm still awaiting Killah's "Day After Tomorrow" review. Some weak reviews have got me thinking twice about seeing NYC turned into a giant freezer. But, if Killah gives it a good review I might just go and check it out, still! DIO/ROUGH 2004 |
| Posted By: Rough Posted On: May 31, 2004 Views: 463 | RE: RE: PS, for Leege.... The improvements in medicine and people living longer is probably yet another reason why the "powers that be" demand more wars. Like famine, disease, earthquakes and floods, it's a surefire way to wipe out a whole bunch of folks at once. And it's totally "man made", unlike those other "acts of nature" and such, that aren't always so accurate or reliable! Too many damn people around here and too little real estate! And we can't have people living to be 120, without some others paying the price! Gotta get rid of a few here and there...but think that it should be more of the old codgers, whose time has come, instead of all these 18-30 year olds killed by war, terror and pointless, stupid martyrdom! DIO/ROUGH 2004 |
| Posted By: alfonsothefan Posted On: Jun 1, 2004 Views: 454 | RE: Not to confuse you guys with facts... ...Rough, all you need do is do a google search and you'll see that Rumsfeld was in the ROTC at Princeton, then served active duty in the Navy from 1954-1957. He retired from the reserves as a Navy Captain in 1989. Let's understand also that the "news" out of Iraq is geared to ensure that the US 'loses' in Iraq like the US 'lost' in Vietnam. Remember, the Tet Offensive was a total loss for the North Vietnamese and it was only after LBJ assured the North Vietnamese that "we" wouldn't attack the Ho Chi Minh Trail that the North started pourng troops down to the South. Why did he do this, you ask? Well, an election was happening in the fall and he wanted his veep, Humpty Dumpty Humphrey, to be elected, to be seen as "trying to 'work with' the North Vietnamese. Jumping ahead to today, we see the same "guys" who "predicted doom & gloom for the Iraqis and US troops" now finding a similar goldmine in the 'prison scandal', which is in reality much ado abut nothing in comparison to the mass graves of Saddam & sons, which you appear to think are merely 'half-full' but I insist were actually 'half-empty'! Now, you may return to your blue smoke and mirrors and commizerate with Sven Jolly who'll agree with you on ANYTHING as long as it's an attack on the country in which you live. I guess I'm really asking you to think for yourself, Rough, not 'follow' anyone. This isn't a 'democracy' here; you needn't have erroneous assumptions reconfirmed by nitwits who don't have a clue, like fluffy. atf |
| Pages [ 1 2 ] Next Page -> |