I apologize for my tone, but not for the content. We (military) find it very offensive when someone who so obviously knows nothing about what is going on downtalks what we are doing. As I said, I have friends over there right now (and I still might go) who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice in order to create a world where little punks who would spit on them don't have to live in a world where the Saddam Husseins and other terrorists could threaten them with WMD. Thanks for nothing.
Originally posted by jello77 im sorry, but you are a little off. first of all, dont look at the 50-50 government polls. They're not all government polls, are they? most of chicago, where i live, is totally anti-war. we had a poll at my high school and it was 80-20 in favor of NOT going to war. as for the rest of the world, if anything it is higher then 85%. in england they call tony blair 'bush's b****'. i really dont know tht many people that are for the war. Your high school is a barometer of the Nation's view? or of the threat to this Nation? saddam hussein is a bull**** excuse. we (usa) support alot of countries that have dictators. Quite an argument there. It's so comprehensive, I don't know if it could evre be refuted. the other thing i would like to say is that if you are pro-war, then YOU can go to war. you can go ahead and fight...if they ever re-open the draft, i will be the prime age to get drafted. i think if you are for this war, be my guest. go ahead. Many of those Americans who are not anti-war already have fought wars for your freedoms. If you want to be fervently anti-war w/o fully assessing the threat to your Nation (based on the 'logic' you present here), that's your prerogative. But don't challange other Americans, child. And FWIW, if you're still in high school, you're not 'prime age'. 20 is. Then 21, 22, 23, 24, 25. 'Eighteen and 19-year-olds would "probably not be drafted," the agency says.' Draft Unlikely To Be Reinstated http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/politics/main534836.shtml
this tells me what? i mean, besides the fact that a bunch of 14-18 year olds are against the war? i remember a poll was done at my old high school during the 2000 election...one of the kids i go to church with was telling me how Nader was going to win the election, because at school he won big time in their little "poll." Nader didn't win.
Treeman, Nothing that Jello said should have been that offensive to you. It's not just High School kids that are against going to war at this time. Just about everyone agrees that Saddam needs to be dealt with. We all agree that he is a bad man. Not too many people disagree with this. What many of us (and the majority of Europe) disagree with is how we go about dealing with him. Many of us are skeptical because we are not sure if our unelected President is making the right decision in alienating many of our Allies in his push for war. Face it, Bush has not done a good job of supplying factual evidence that war is necessary right now. Many of us question why he has such a hard on for attacking Iraq when it is clear that there are other Nations that potentially pose more of a threat to us and our Allies than Iraq does. There appears to be a double-standard when dealing with Iraq. There are a great many rogue nations that have and do aid Al Queda and other terrorist groups, be it directly or indirectly. There are other Nations that posess weapons more devastating than those of Iraq. And then there's the question of what can of worms will we open by attacking Iraq without the support of other Nations. I agree, it's a catch-22 situation. If we do nothing at this time he could potentially sell arms to those who would do damage to us. But on the other hand, if we attack then we might encourage them to attack us as a means of 'self defense'. This is a delicate situation. Some of us do not feel comfortable with Bush's cowboy rhetoric. Some of us do feel comfortable thumbing our noses at country that are supposed to be our Allies. That spit comment of yours was uncalled for because for one, this is not Viet Nam. And two, We are not at war yet. You and other soldiers are not being spat on by us. We all realize that the soldiers do not make the decisions. You are merely obeying the orders of your Commander in Chief.
If so, I didn't hear about it yet. And for the record, regardless of my stance on the potential war, I do not condone the spitting on of soldiers. Shame on those who do.
To Treeman's credit, who here has really decided to pursue a career where the end goal could be sacrificing your life for a country of people, most of whom you barely know? I don't condone his emotional reaction, but it's got to be tough to hear. I'm not saying those of us opposing a pre-emptive war should shut our mouths. I'm just saying I can only barely begin to imagine what it's like to hear all the negativity when you've offered such an immense personal sacrifice. Really, just think about it. Imagine hearing a bunch of people telling you that you and your friends may die in an effort that these people believe is worse than useless. It's gotta be intense.
No standing "O" for Bush? Perhaps he should take a cue from Bill Clinton...If you want an "O", sit down in the Oval Office and call an intern! This message was for all of my Clinton-hating friends on this BBS...hope you enjoyed it and don't say that I never gave you anything!!!...RMT
OK, Chance, you knocked me around pretty good and I should have checked the source, but I'm not ready to throw in the towel yet. An item appeared on the BBC site with a bit more specificity today, though I'm not pinning my hopes on Baronness Williams (thank god we don't do that royal crap here) as she may not be an unimpeachable source. I'm holding out for a few more days before total capitulation. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2830585.stm The White House asked if President Bush could address the European Parliament, Baroness Williams revealed on BBC One's This Week show on Thursday. But, she said, Euro-MPs were told there was a condition attached to him making the speech: a standing ovation should be guaranteed. The speech has never taken place.
So I assume you find it appropriate the way Vietnam Vets were treated? What in the f**k are you saying? You think they were the ones who started that war, or was it an action by the Commander in Chief? That is ignorant. Today's Armed Forces is one of volunteers, compare that to the Armed Forces that fought in Vietnam, a large number of those who fought in Vietnam we drafted. Many of who were more against that war than were those who spat on them, threw things at them, treated them like sh*t and alienated them when they returned.
TheHorns, Whoa, calm down now. I already said that spitting on soldiers is a bad thing and gave a reason as to why it is bad. All I meant was that VN was an entirely different situation. When spitting on soldiers was originally mentioned in this thread, VN was what came to my mind. I was unaware that it happened recently. (Even though I still haven't read or heard about it happening.) I thought he made the original comparison to VN, which is why I said that this is not VN. My bad if that is not what he was referring to. That's what the **** I was saying.
Dude I GLADLY will! No dollar necessary. I would be humiliated if a fellow conservative posted rubbish like that. And if it has happened and I glossed over it as fact then I am ashamed. Credibe news sources only people. That goes for us as well as the socialists lefties.
my radio station is reporting France is going to vote No on the resolution and Pakistan is going to abstain
Much better...not quite there yet...but better See people...friendly, healthy banter. I need to re-read this thread when I am typing in a huff!
