yeah they volunteered, but some of those kids have had their tour extended 2-3 times without any sort of input in the decision, many have none of the benefits they were told they would have, some of these people are not receiving adequate protection on dangerous missions, blah blah blah i'm not gonna go into this right now because it's been done in a thousand other threads.

but to say that "Oh yeah, then what are the tens of thousands of non-college-bound kids gonna do for work?" is completely moronic, and te worst possible reason I can think of to support a war. They're not going to college, so it's time to fucking sign up to KILL PEOPLE!!??? Come on, man you can't think there's nothing else for people to do. In that line of thought we should keep waging war on people just for the sake of employing our non-collegebound population. It's cyclic and destructive.



I will say this about Sheehan. She had to have known how much shit she was gonna take for doing this shit after saying those things after her first meeting with the president (and she does. it's addressed in her blog) and for anyone to be shocked about this is completely stupid. She presented a duck hunt, whther sincere or not. I agree with her standpoint but there's no way this will end in anything but failure.

That said, people do weird shit in periods of grief. I'm sure I'd say some things I totally didn't mean if I lost a son. Shit, ask Santorum about that stuff, he's got the pictures to prove it.

Not at all what I said. I never said go to war because it puts kids to work.

What I did say is that the armed forces provide a career opportunity, in many cases the best career opportunity, for young people.

My point was that there's no chance in hell of a militant force invading this country, and that if, as all of these protestors would have it, our armed forces were only to engage in combat on U.S. soil, we wouldn't need a standing army, nor marine corps--the air force and navy are more than equipped to defend our shores from foreign invasion.

I also said, and I'll repeat, that the people we are engaging overseas are terrorist--enemy combatants. I would rather we fight them "over there" than "over here".

I have no qualms about using the professional army that we maintain. As far as I can tell, the members of our professional army have few qualms about performing the tasks and executing the orders given to them.

Keep in mind, we've lost what, fewer than 2000 soldiers...in close to four years? Show me any other four year war where one side has kept its KIA's to below 2000.

Let's get a couple things straight here. There really is no such thing as "Supporting the Troops." What the fuck is a 'troop' any way? I don't know any of them, but I do know some damn fine soldiers.

And the way I support them is by staying in as best touch with them as possible, and thanking them for a job that frankly, I cannot do.

And scottycash, I know I have said this 10,000,000 times, but if you keep harping on the president lied and all that shit, it doesn't add up to anything without a viable alternative and Z-grade peaceniks like you, l'il Howie and Nasty Nancy will never reach a believability threshold with the majority of the American people, because they know, deep down, you don't have the heart to defend this country.

This woman, however, is unbalanced, and the people who are supporting her, should give her a hug, a tall glass of whiskey and a 2 week stay in a Hilton resort somewhere. That ain't bringing her son back, but it may help to realize that her bizarre grandstanding does nothing to bring him back, and less than nothing to help his friends and fellow soldiers still over in the desert.

It's always going to be sad when kids die in a war. At best, with the best of reasons (aka fighting Hitler), it'll be noble AND sad. But they don't make evil villains like that anymore... the kind who stand up, declare open war, take over Poland... that shit's dead.

and by not faulting them for doing their job whether I agree with the job or not.

Yeah, like Sadaam invading Kuwait; good times

Psssh. Don't compare toothpicks to baseball bats. He didn't scare anybody. He was just reminiscing.

I think the rape and murder victims (or their kin) would disagree.

I didn't say he was Mr Goodtime, but please, he did nothing on the scale of stalin, musollini, or hitler. I don't french his picture at night or anything.

Do you really put him on that level, or is this just Yail looking to blow off some leftover Bingo steam?

In terms of NUMBER of people killed, probably not, but he probably killed an equal amount of Iraq's population as Pol Pot killed Cambodia's.

I put him somewhere between the Stalin/Mao/Hitler trifecta and the Z-grade despots of the 70s like Papa Doc, Ferdinand Marcos or Idi Amin.

Yeah, I guess my fuzzy point is that, while certainly evil enough, he still doesn't make the imposing, larger-than-life badguy target that the all-timers did. He did, however, commission some grade-A Crazy Despot self imagery for his palaces. "Bring me some titties and a saucer of goat's milk!"

First of all, just so we are historically accurate: Mussolini was, at best, a two bit punk who latched on to a good (sic) thing and ended up getting hung by piano wire. Don't even put him in the same universe as we are discussing.

Dude, Sadaam was a bad dude. He fucked some people up. And his shit (and especially the actions of his obviously inbred sons) actually reeks of some of the same sick shit that the Nazi's did: Weird torture, "experiments", genital mutilation, and Rape, Rape, Rape......

So yeah, just because you (or me for that matter) dont like George Bush or think that the war is unjust----don't get it twisted: This fucker needed to be taken out.

I've said it before: I would have supported the war much more if they had just TOLD me that they were going in to take out Sadaam and clean some shit up instead of this half assed shit.

I'm sure it comes from ignorance on my part. I've only seen/heard a limited amount about what happened on his/his sons' watches, whereas I have visited Dachau. No doubts about Sadam needing to be gone though. I think that's one of the very few points nobody seems to argue about in all of this. The guy was scum.

it's pretty much exactly what you said, whether that was your intention or not. I'm not going to knock our soldiers for signing up or following orders (who the fuck would?). But that that is the best option for that much of your youth is a problem in itself. Yes, it has been this way for a great part of history in this country, but as the distribution of wealth in this country is fucking nil. The GI bill is nothing compared to what it once was and if we're gonna get all pissed about how we're not respecting our troops, lets fucking pay them well enough to earn that right. I make more than a soldier right now, and I'm FUCKING POOR.

and LooG, none of have the heart to defend this country but neither do you nor anyone else on this board. The majority of these troops are not over there to defend freedom or fight terrorism but because they can't afford to do anything else. The president lying is fuck all in (at least my) view of what's wrong with this war. We would've gotten into a war regardless of who it was with. It's just unfortunate that we picked the country that was a minimal threat at best which happened to have control of vast natural resources that we happen to be preparing for a mass shortage of. Let the oil exec's kids go fight over there. Or give the soldiers the fucking allowances some of these fucking kid get, which is more than you and I put together, I'm sure. or let all the fucking psychos in this country who think questioning our governments motives is unpatriotic go fight that shit.

The shit Saddam's sons were committing are on the atrocity level, but jesus that shit is happening in several countries on this earth that DON'T have a natural reserve we can bust open like a pinata. We are (or at least were) in collusion with one of these just for a fucking air base. Pol Pot and Saddam are two different people in more than one way. We also didn't kill 22,000 Cambodian citizens in trying to rescue them.




Okay, I really have to go get some work done.


Edit Do you even read my posts before firing back insults? I even mentioned that you probably didn't mean it that way, but it's gonna come across like that. I'd post the above in massive letters new at the bottom of the page, but frankly I don't give a shit and you're clingin to that last word.

two things: next time, if you want to make a politicaly charged statement based on journalism, show us your source. this is from the drudge report, a notorious partisan website that's part of the right wing noise/propoganda machine. this is an overt attempt to smear her by twisting her words.
for a thourough explanation of why this article was flawed, check this link out:
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/8/8/125041/8506

among the more pertinent sections:


she's not quite the hypocrite you'd like her to be

[quote="Cotton"]it's pretty much exactly what you said[/b]

No, it's not. I'm beginning to suspect your reading comprehension skills atrophied after second grade.

You imply that I've said we should go to war because it keeps kids employed. I've said no such thing. I said we should not be hesitant to use the army we have to protect ourselves. In this case, we've gone to war to combat terrorism.

i usually have little simpathy for those in the armed forces cuz they are volunteer and they are paid. its kinda harsh to say, but they are hired killers. so the fact that they are in harms way means little to me personally.

i think fighting terrorism could be done without sending troops. send money for hospitals, schools, medicine, infastruction, etc. if we invested half of the billions of dollars we have spent on the "war on terror" i sure we would curb alot of hatred toward america

are you thinking of the private security corps or the army? please tell me you're not talking about the general army. ths is the sort of shit that will prevent the left in this country from ever getting taken seriously.

sometimes people can afford to do little else. sometimes people want to join so the can help. some people want non-weaponry training they can't get elsewhere. some were ROTC not thinking they'd ever have to go anywhere, or national guardsmen who were psyched for paintball and drinking. What they're doing is not always (or even mostly) right, but don't make it out like the majority of soldiers decided to do it for a sweet paycheck or to kill shit. there are lots of factors here, not the least of which being social and economic.

So will "infrastruction." C'mon Scotty, I'm rootin' for you, but you're killing me with that.

Maybe we could all go over there and just give 'em all a hug. That's sure to work.

oh sorry, that was a serious comment.