So, is your real name Henry Hill or Sammy "The Bull" Gravano? Either way...ya got any Ecstacy you can sell me? I've got a couple of gigs this weekend......
Gwayneco, Are you really too stupid to realize that the post you linked to is in support of the troops and is making the case that the Administration's tolerance of torture of prisoners makes it more likely that our soldiers will be tortured when captured. Here's the rest of that post- So again, are you really that stupid or are you just that dishonest?
Are you so stupid as to believe that the thugs who killed these sodiers would have given them milk, cookies, and an ipod but for Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, etc?
Well numerous other prisoners in Iraq have been treated humanely. There is no way of knowing, but the information posted there was still in defense of the troops, and the hopes that doing the right thing, would prevent torture from our troops. The sentiment is 100% supportive of our troops. It is also supportive the Army's own view that torture should not be done by our troops for the same sentiment as the post quoted by you.
That has nothing to do with whether the post from Daily Kos was supportive of the troops or not. Again, Stupid? Or Dishonest? I don't know how else to explain you posting comments in support of our soldiers as if they are attacking them. Maybe it's just dyslexia. You see the words "Kos" and "soldiers" and read "troop haters".
You're right. The Kos Kidz response to the brutal killings was to say "How quaint." Yep, that's supportive all right. Again, Stupid? Or Dishonest? Which are you?
Are you serious!!!???? Can you not undestand sarcasm? Do you honestly believe they thought brutal killigs were quaint? I can't believe that you were unable to detect even the most overt examples of sarcasm in this.
Okay, I know now. The answer is stupid and dishonest. You have no idea what the posters use of the word "quaint" is referring to. Try googling the words "gonzalez" and "quaint". But even if you didn't get that reference there is no way to read the rest of that post and interpret it as an attack on the troops.
Next Gwayneco is going to say that the title of this thread is literal and he really did post this as an example of Democratic support of the military.
http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/2006/06/post_134.html#002858 I've asked this before, but what is it about the relatives of people killed by terrorists that these wingnuts hate so much? Recall that Ann Coulter smeared the widows of 9/11 victims and that many righty bloggers smeared the father of Nick Berg, who was beheaded in Iraq. Their sin, of course, was that they criticized America and George Bush. Let me put this as clearly as I can: To the likes of Hinderaker, the pain of those who lost loved ones to this war only matters to the extent that the bereaved allow their grief to be used to prop up the war effort and Bush himself. If the bereaved relatives don't allow their grief to be used in this fashion, their sacrifice and loss no longer matter a whit -- they're not to be pitied or empathized with, but scorned and humiliated as brutally as possible. Despicable.
I just don't agree with either extreme end. I don't believe in being a US Military fanboy, who knows every tank, plane, gun, knife and boot used by the US Military, and rooting for them the way one would root for the Rockets in the finals. Don't get me wrong I want us to come out on top in every battle, because that means fewer of our guys don't get to come home. But I kind of temper my joy with the sadness that a lot of the guys on the other side aren't going to survive. Even if we were 100% sure that every Arab casualty in the war on terror is a terrorist (and that doesn't seem to be the case) , I wouldn't think it seemly to root for shooting people the way I root for shooting jump shots. By the same token some of my fellow liberals just assume that any military action taken when the Republicans are in charge is completely unwarrented. And worse they don't have the courage to say so during times like immediately post 9/11 when the hawks have popular sentiment. I think the war against the Taliban is justified. I think the war in Iraq was unjustified and the American people were lied to and bullied by an administration that considers itself above the Constitution. The truth is somewhere in between the extremes, but because extremism is more fun than moderation...and zealots vote with a higher degree of regularity than moderates. Then we just have more division and partisanship.
Interesting post. I could be described as, "a US Military fanboy," in the sense that I grew up in the '50's and early '60's, hearing WWII and Korean War stories, the old question, "What did your Dad do doing the war?" The war being WWII, of course. We played as boys with sticks as rifles and machine guns, taking turns as the good guys and the bad guys, and using non-PC names for the bad guys, I can assure you. We built model warships (I still have one of the Hood) and aircraft, even tanks. We played with those little minature army men, contructing elaborate dirt fortifications and blowing them up with firecrackers left over from the 4th, and New Years. In short, I've had a lifelong facination with things military, even while I was a pacifist. (a bit of dichotomy there, I admit) I'm still interested in the stuff, and have had fun a couple of times here with threads arguing over what kinds of aircraft carriers we should be building. (I favor more carriers of a smaller size... the Brits impressed me with the way they fought the Falklands War, although I would want larger ones than they used... more carriers equals fewer large targets to hit, and a cheaper, wider range of deployment, but I digress) I think the war against the Taliban is justified. I think the war in Iraq was unjustified and the American people were lied to and bullied by an administration that considers itself above the Constitution. I'm also a liberal Democrat, who hates the fact that our men and women are deployed in an unnecessary war in Iraq, when they could be busy training, hunting al-Quada, and sitting around largely unused, at the moment, scaring the hell out of countries like Iran, who have far more potential to be a threat to our security and national interests than Iraq, as a for instance. As far as gwayneco, texxx, basso and company are concerned, I'm pigeon-holed as a libpig who wants our troops to be defeated, is a traitor to our country because I think George W. Bush is a damned fool and his war a colossal mistake. (well, to be honest, I'm not sure if basso thinks I'm a "libpig," just everything else) Go figure. If anything, and they're going to love this, I think I'm more patriotic than they are. Keep D&D Civil.
Anyway back to the topic of the thread (is there a topic?). Anyone else find it interesting the WH seems to be playing down the torture/killing of two of our finest? It seems the WH doesn't have much to say about it. Or am I missing it somewhere? And wasn't one of the boys a Houstonian?
Iraqis tortured, Gonzales supports the slippery slope of the torture argument, Americans tortured, Gonzalez taken to task, Democrats hate the troops. It's all perfectly linear logic.
