FINALLY! Our whorish mainstream media reports on the memo

A wise man once said "never argue with fools, because people from a distance can't tell who is who."

I'll let you sort out which one you are, but I think it's pretty obvious.

 

So, martin, you're in favor of a war that is not critical to our freedom, that has cost us 1594 soldiers' lives, 15000 serious injuries, 30000 Iraqi lives and many times that in injuries, and $300 billion dollars on top of an already record high deficit.

You're not only a hypocrite, you're very callous about warfare.

Your policeman analogy is ludicrous. Policemen and soldiers both volunteer in service to our security, and bear arms to do it, but that's about where the equation stops. The policeman can volunteer out when they don't agree with policy, but that doesn't apply to soldiers. It is up to civilians to speak up for them. And we don't force policemen to go anywhere, especially to places that don't involve critical threats to our security. And don't forget... you've already admitted that Iraq is not.

It's hilarious how you keep changing your arguments when trapped on the last one. Frankly, you give atheists a bad name.

Now, go wish your mother a happy Mother's Day. She can be happy that she still has her son, in a land that gives him the freedom to be callous, cowardly. and hypocritical.

It's a shame that 1594 other American mothers can't be that happy.

 

i'ts not critical to my freedom, but over the long run it is great. yunno for our kids and the world at large, spreading democracy is huge.

you are trying very hard to take me out of context. i said i would not live under a dictator, i would rather fight. you pretend i said i would fight every single war we get into. thats pretty dishonest of you. if we do not fight the war in iraq, it isnt like we are suddenly no longer free and have a brutal dictator and no freedom. if that was the case i would be fighting right now. the iraqi war is important to our long term freedom and is worth fighting. but not so important that ever able bodied person under 40 should go fight or be called a hypocrite. thats simply stupid.

i suppose i am callous. so what. i dont understand how i am a hypocrite. i realize that according to you i cannot favor anything without actually doing it myself. fine, thats stupid, whatever. pointless.

dont join the military if you do not trust you leaders or the leaders who may get elected. my policeman analogy was meant to explain to you how you can support something without actually joining and doing it. you cant seem to understand that, even though i have explained it numerous times.

dont be stupid, of course we do. just the places are much closer.

show me where i changed anything, specifically, please. you are lying. i have changed nothing. i challenge you to show me what i have changed. you are lying. use quotes, and dont lie. don't lie. what i have a changed? do not lie.

i give atheists a bad name? i am glad. i dont represent groups, i represent me.

yay for freedom.

cheap shot. liberals always do that. dont discuss the issue, just harp on very emotional points.

 

So why do you have a problem with the US helping out Kuwait when Saddam wanted to take them over. We were helping them from being taken by the same man whom you are happy to see out of power.

 

i dont care about kuwaiti lives. countries should defend themselves. we are not the protector of everyone. kuwaitis should fight and die themselves if they want freedom. iraqis too.

and like i said before, maybe saddam would have continued to take over stuff until he overextended himself and was overthrown. and also:

 

PHP:

of course we do. just the places are much closer.

Are you REALLY that daft? We can't force a policeman to go ANYWHERE because he can QUIT any time he likes.

Just because a soldier volunteered on trust doesn't mean his trust can't be abused. They volunteered to defend this country, not to fight in a war that martin thinks is great in the long run. And that's not the rationale they were given for this war, at any rate.

And I've already showed how you change your argument when trapped. You changed "want" to "decide" and backed off of "planned" when it was shown that your comments on the linked article didn't make a link of sense given its contents.

"Spreading democracy is great in the long run, but not critical to our security." Then what's it "great" for? Your rationalizations are pathetically lame... but predictable from a cowardly hypocrite.

 

i am really curious as to exactly what gave you the idea that this administration gives 2 sh!ts about saving political face. considering they barged into another sovereign country on absolutely no factual premise, against the will of the UN, and in the face of homeland opposition equal to that of vietnam, i'd say those people are not concerned in the least bit about 'political implications'. besides, they're at the helm for another 4, what do they care about what ppl think anymore? they've never cared before, why start now.

anyhow, the statements about being undermanned and undersuplied are very well documented. this assessment has not only come from those that i know over there, but also from top military officials and advisors. it's no secret that the mission of nation building was grossly undercalculated before troops were even deployed.

um, exactly. why do they need us to intervene to help kill more of them? and moreover, at the expense of thousands of american lives? not to mention the fiscal cost to us, which is nearing $170billion [link]

you say that as if that country is not headed down a fast-track to subsequent turmoil upon our exit (if that actually ever happens). the three divisions of islam that dominate the iraqi population are entirely to fanatical to coexist peacefully with one of them being in power. you simply cannot march into a country of 25 million people who have never experienced anything other than a brutal dictatorship and suddenly thrust them into a peaceful, democratic way of life. it can't be done, particularly given the immense religious tension and thirst for power in that region. democracies and just governmental systems must be fought for, and gained, internally and over time, much like that of our own. it is dangerously idealogical to believe that iraq will be the 'example of peace and democracy in the middle east', as bush puts it. the belief that you can go around enforcing your system of government on other cultures the world over is foolish, imperialist, and self-contradicting.

you don't actually believe this, do you? the only things that this war has in common with the first go-round are a)the protection of percieved american interests in the region (i.e., oil) and b)pt. I affixed a personal vendetta in dubya that he would hopelessly pursue under any, or no as the case is, circumstances.

if you want to go the UN violations route, it holds no water given the activity of others in the region. the fact is, since 1968, our good pals in israel (link) have commited almost twices as many (32) UN resolutions as iraq. most of them are regarding illegal west bank settlements that are paramount in the continued conflict between israel and palestine. so they've basically been perpetuating the epicenter of terrorism for all these years. but i thought iraq was part of the the 'war on terror'? if that is so, then why do we ignore the one place it's been occuring the most abundantly?

first of all, you're admitting that he was not a threat to that part of the world upon our invasion. that's significant because that was the backbone of bush's justification for invasion. yeah, yeah, bad intelligence. and i came down with the frickin' rain last night. 'intelligence' blunders this monumental are not a coincidence. if you don't find yourself questioning and demanding accountability for this sort of thing, you should re-evaluate your approach to the ways of international politics.

second, if you want to call into question every tyrannical leader that 'defies' UN sanctioning and could, possibly, eventually, have malicious intent in their respective region, do you have any idea how many countries we'd have to invade and overthow?

finally someone who knows what they're talking about. this continuous discourse of conjecture that relates iraq to the 'war on terror' is frighteningly blind. not only are we NOT fighting the same people who attacked us, or who even had plans to attack us, but we're also perpetuating the most vicious and wreckless hatred of us by a completely irrational orginization of individuals. sad and gullible.

http://www.truthaboutwar.org/

 

martin knows what he's talking about?

He was against defending Kuwait when Saddam overran it, but supports the Iraq invasion not because it's anything critical but because spreading democracy is "great in the long run." I guess democracy was not great in the long run for Kuwait?

martin can't even keep his storyline straight. It's what happens when you're so utterly callous about somebody else's life that you can't even pay enough attention to formulate a consistent mindset.

 

i dont agree with getting into fights, but i definiteyly do not agree with not finishing fights you start. you dont end a war with a cease fire, then have the terms of the cease fire violated, and do nothing. if you get in a war, you fight until the enemy is defeated. you do not let the enemy lie to you with a cease fire that is not adhered to. if the enemy does not obey the terms of the cease fire, you continue fighting. simple.

this is exactly what politicians were saying to justify the war. there were not harping on wmds like you are.

 

dont just tell me i was "trapped". show my my quotes. you can lie all day. show me what i said, where i backed off anything.

i explained to you multiple times how someone can "have plans" for something, with no intent to enact the plans. i asked you specifically for the part of the article that says bush had "decided" to invade, and you could not provide. i specifically explained the difference between having plans for something, and actually deciding to enact the plans. i want you to show me quotes of mine where i changed my argument, or stop lying. lets see the quotes, everything is here. stop the lies. if i was "trapped", i want you to show me where, with quotes. go ahead. do it. please. do it. stop lying. again, my quotes are there waiting for you to use. use them.

pay attention. i already said it, so i will quote myself.

(edit= i just realize your quote of mine above is made up. no wonder it didnt sound right. i express my displeasure with fake quotes in the post below)