The W
Views: 97633536
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.7.07 0814
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - 20 Things We've Learned Since 9/11
This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next(2036 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (119 total)
Jakegnosis
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 72/645
EXP: 1084164
For next: 72962

Since: 26.7.02
From: Maine

Since last post: 2770 days
Last activity: 2754 days
#41 Posted on 1.8.02 1751.06
Reposted on: 1.8.09 1759.07

    Originally posted by ICEMAN
    OK How would you handle it?


    Peaceful talks?

    Make Islam the new country-wide relgion?


    We tried to obliterate the people that killed thousands of civilans they just happened to be hiding in the mountains and towns of Afghanistan.In any war there are major possibilities of civilian casualties.Especially when they are hiding who knows where.


    It's amazing how you view a lot of the U.S. does as wrong but we are supposed to be right about war.






    (edited by ICEMAN on 1.8.02 1737)



I was in Afghanistan with my Ranger unit, neutralizing airfields. The general consensus among my buddies and I was that we, along with other elite units, might be more useful tracking down Al Qaeda and killing them than disabling their virtually nonexistant air support. Instead, fucks like Rumsfeld that don't know shit about being a soldier just give the orders to bomb everything in sight because they can't be fucking bothered to do old fashioned intelligence, figure out where the fuckers are and send some badasses to take them out of the picture. Instead they just decide to say "fuck it, lets throw strategy and tactics out the window and fucking carpet bomb everthing in the country." Like those civilians in the cities were in on the Al Qaeda plot. The average Afghani didn't even know who Bin Laden was, let alone why we were killing their families. The "war" in Afghanistan was a criminal misuse of military resources- a ridiculous shot of muscle-flexing and overkill. And also the reason why I didn't reenlist in bat when my time ran out a couple months ago. I'm still proud to be a Ranger, and an American. I just don't trust corporate whores and neo-fascists like Bush, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 93/4700
EXP: 21363608
For next: 473054

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1178 days
Last activity: 975 days
#42 Posted on 1.8.02 1805.13
Reposted on: 1.8.09 1805.56
Someone broguht up partisanship a few replies back and I think that such rampant partisanship is a GOOD thing. Most of us are relatively younger folks. You know, the blocks that vote the absolute lowest percentage of any demo in the country. The fact that we are partisan at least shows that we give a damn about this country and our leadership and our plight as opposed to some of this fuckwads who smoke crack and play GTA3 all day and all night.

The partisanship shows a passion for our process, our future, and our country. And the fact that we sit back and forth bitching about it is a lot healthier than living under the Osama bin Laden utopia that's for damn sure.

The rant was a little off topic but it needed to be said...
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 390/1084
EXP: 2415726
For next: 46138

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2896 days
Last activity: 2893 days
#43 Posted on 1.8.02 1808.06
Reposted on: 1.8.09 1808.06
Did you even bother to read what I posted? It certainly doesn't sound like it. The media recently has gone ape over coporate abuses, which has been going on for years. A standard response would be that the liberal media is doing this to further their communist revolution, or some such nonsense. However, if you had read that link, most journalists are more condervative than the rest of the country when it ocmes to economic issues.

Furthermore, who cares what the journalists think. It comes down to what the owners of the media outlest let get published, and I would be hard pressed to come up with one of these multi millionaires that are liberal. It doesn't matter what journalists think, it matters what their bosses say they can and cannot cover. I repeat, please read this article, and the book it is about, and stop throwing out that damn 85% number which wasn't relevant 5+ years ago when it was still accurate.

And we created and armed both the Taliban and Al Queda, so would responsibility then fall back to us? Let's look at it this way, if there was some crazy guy living in the Rockies, and he did something to Iran, would we really jump right up to find this guy and turn him over? I doubt it. Does that give them the right to bomb Denver, which is nearby and the guys brother might be living there?

Edit: partisianship is never a good thing, as it shows an unwillingness to really think for oneself. I mean, having an ideology is acceptable, but the whole "*fill in the blank* is evil" thing does more damage to the political process than not voting does to it.

(edited by eviljonhunt81 on 1.8.02 1810)
Jakegnosis
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 76/645
EXP: 1084164
For next: 72962

Since: 26.7.02
From: Maine

Since last post: 2770 days
Last activity: 2754 days
#44 Posted on 1.8.02 1825.16
Reposted on: 1.8.09 1829.02

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    And we created and armed both the Taliban and Al Queda, so would responsibility then fall back to us? Let's look at it this way, if there was some crazy guy living in the Rockies, and he did something to Iran, would we really jump right up to find this guy and turn him over? I doubt it. Does that give them the right to bomb Denver, which is nearby and the guys brother might be living there

    (edited by eviljonhunt81 on 1.8.02 1810)



Very good point. There were much better ways to go about rooting out Al Qaeda than indiscriminately killing everything that moves with gigantic bombs. That's like burning down an entire neighborhood to take out a crack house.
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 491/1180
EXP: 2742997
For next: 126761

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3384 days
Last activity: 3378 days
#45 Posted on 1.8.02 1827.36
Reposted on: 1.8.09 1829.04
"Furthermore, who cares what the journalists think. It comes down to what the owners of the media outlest let get published, and I would be hard pressed to come up with one of these multi millionaires that are liberal."

Have you ever heard the name Ted Turner? Believe it or not, it is possible to be a rich and still be "liberal" when it comes to social/cultural issues. And even if your not big on liberal ideology, then maybe you're just messed-up enough/economically smart enough to realize that the junk that idiot producers and broadcasters would like to put on the air on your stations SELLS, so you go with it.

And I will read your article and get back to you on whatever it says. Don't have a whole lot of time now but I promise to later.

DMC
ICEMAN
Landjager
Level: 62

Posts: 198/927
EXP: 1881780
For next: 102917

Since: 23.5.02
From: Nashville,TN

Since last post: 1784 days
Last activity: 1473 days
#46 Posted on 1.8.02 1827.57
Reposted on: 1.8.09 1829.05
You have to remember,We gave them the weapons the time they were at war with Russia during the same time that the U.S. and Russia didn't like each other very much.


We gave them the weapons to fight them and after they defeated Russia,we kinda abandoned them.Thats why Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda hates America.


As for the guy in the Rockies.If he bombed Iran and didn't kill anyone we would turn him over soon or later but if he did kill someone we would definately turn him over.


As with bin Laden,The Taliban knew he was in their country,we asked for them to turn him over and they said no.I'll admit we used a lot of unneeded power but it was viewed that we had to.


OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 224/3022
EXP: 11106868
For next: 364577

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 3 days
AIM:  
#47 Posted on 1.8.02 1828.19
Reposted on: 1.8.09 1829.06

    Originally posted by Jakegnosis
    I was in Afghanistan with my Ranger unit, neutralizing airfields. The general consensus among my buddies and I was that we, along with other elite units, might be more useful tracking down Al Qaeda and killing them than disabling their virtually nonexistant air support. Instead, fucks like Rumsfeld that don't know shit about being a soldier just give the orders to bomb everything in sight because they can't be fucking bothered to do old fashioned intelligence, figure out where the fuckers are and send some badasses to take them out of the picture. Instead they just decide to say "fuck it, lets throw strategy and tactics out the window and fucking carpet bomb everthing in the country." Like those civilians in the cities were in on the Al Qaeda plot. The average Afghani didn't even know who Bin Laden was, let alone why we were killing their families. The "war" in Afghanistan was a criminal misuse of military resources - a ridiculous shot of muscle-flexing and overkill. And also the reason why I didn't reenlist in bat when my time ran out a couple months ago. I'm still proud to be a Ranger, and an American. I just don't trust corporate whores and neo-fascists like Bush, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft.


And...


    Originally posted by Grimis
    Someone broguht up partisanship a few replies back and I think that such rampant partisanship is a GOOD thing. Most of us are relatively younger folks. You know, the blocks that vote the absolute lowest percentage of any demo in the country. The fact that we are partisan at least shows that we give a damn about this country and our leadership and our plight as opposed to some of this fuckwads who smoke crack and play GTA3 all day and all night.

    The partisanship shows a passion for our process, our future, and our country. And the fact that we sit back and forth bitching about it is a lot healthier than living under the Osama bin Laden utopia that's for damn sure.

    The rant was a little off topic but it needed to be said...



A pair of standing ovations, guys... I couldn't possibly agree more (and in the later case, this is one of the most liberal people here agreeing with one of the most conservative, and that's *really* saying something...)
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 391/1084
EXP: 2415726
For next: 46138

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2896 days
Last activity: 2893 days
#48 Posted on 1.8.02 1848.01
Reposted on: 1.8.09 1850.40
Part of the "liberal media" problem seems to come down to interpretations. First and foremost, I don't think there is any way that one can say our media has a liberal slant when covering political issues. I mean, The NY Times said that Nader should drop out of the presidential race. That's not a liberal media. However, if you say that the media plays up sex and violence, and therefore is liberal, you have a better argument, but how is sex and violence liberal? I mean, it's not "conservative," but does not being conservative make one a liberal? It's not liberal in a poliical sense, but it is capatilistic. It does not really care to push any ideologies except for a banal middle ground, slightly conservative (as this country is slightly conservative as a whole) and generally non threatening. It simply wont cover stories or issues that could lead to serious discussion, because then we wouldn't be watching the junk they give us. The media is sensationalistic and capitalistic, but anything but liberal.

And we need to stick to either the reporters covering hard news, or the entertainment media, as the two try to seperate themselves, even though many media owners would like to see a merger between the two.

Edited for a stupid mistake right at the end.

(edited by eviljonhunt81 on 1.8.02 1848)
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 492/1180
EXP: 2742997
For next: 126761

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3384 days
Last activity: 3378 days
#49 Posted on 1.8.02 1929.31
Reposted on: 1.8.09 1945.25
"However, if you say that the media plays up sex and violence, and therefore is liberal, you have a better argument, but how is sex and violence liberal?"

Sexual revolution, free love, do whatever you want and don't let old values hold you down, etc. There is definately liberal ideology and a social *value* present in promoting sex. Liberals in business just get an extra hard-on off of it because it happens to sell very well.

I read some of that article, but if I had to go by the summary then I would say most of what it says we just covered. I would draw a distinction between an economic liberal and a cultural/social liberal. However, I would say that all these supposedly economic conservatives in broadcasting go on and continue to uphold Democrats as "for the little guy" and Republicans as "evil businessmen" when they know damn well that Democracts and liberals like money just as much as the others do. That's even more devious to me, because they are then lying and knowing it for political gain.

Also in response to that article, most people are leaving out talk radio when they talk about liberal bias in the media. It is a given that talk radio is largely ultra conservative. The major print and TV media is what people complain about (THUS, the push towards conservatives to move into talk radio years ago).

It is interesting then to get back to what you mentioned about all the recent business scandal coverage. If I grant that reporters and people in broadcasting are on average *economically* conservative, then simply question again why we are seeing all this coverage now, or even in the first place. Could it be because they see it as an opportunity to try and tag the Bush administration with all this in order to eat into his popularity? This is exactly what has happened after all. If economics isn't the motive for promoting all this, then what is? Again I don't know how proveable this (or anything I've said) is, but it's at least something to think about.

DMC

BigWhalebony
Bauerwurst
Level: 23

Posts: 35/96
EXP: 62259
For next: 5465

Since: 26.7.02
From: SALEM

Since last post: 3621 days
Last activity: 2583 days
#50 Posted on 2.8.02 0059.56
Reposted on: 2.8.09 0104.46
To whomever started this thread:
Man, I hope you don't believe any of that bull. I know you posted it, but why. You or any brainwashed left winger could've written that garbage. Actually it could've been in the New York Times or Boston Globe, which directly goes against the statement that the HardRight of the Republican Party has taken control of much of the conglomerate-owned media. What a crock. Liberals run the media and always have. If you need research on the subject, I have a 35 page paper I wrote for my Communication Research class. And Sen. Jim Jeffords is a coward and a liar. He would not be a senator right now if he ran under the correct banner. He ran as a Republican. It's a sham. Puff Daschle wouldn't have any power right now and neither would the Deceptacons. Jeffords revealed himself as a Deceptacon(Independent my ass) because it afforded HIM more power. It did nothing to help anyone, but himself. Hopefully nothing like that will happen again. Revealing yourself to be a member of a different party after you have been elected as a member of another party is bold face lying to your constituents about everything that you previously told them you believed in. Anyway that happened in May and had nothing to do with the war on terror.

I will admit this particular article you have cut and paste(or written yourself perhaps) is just as bad as Bill O'Reilly's statements for the right. He's just as bad as the PTC.

Anyhoo, if the Hard Right were truly running this country we would have bombed every known terrorists group known to mankind years ago. We freakin know the exact caves Bin Laden has recorded his videos in. We have the technology to find and bomb the hell out of any threat to our country. Powell is hardly the Hard Right and he is the one that has been preventing us from going all out. If Pat Buchanan didn't get bushwhacked years ago by the LIBERAL media, he may have become President, and we would have killed off all threats to our country years ago. We also probably would have slowed immigration to our country and been more careful in accepting other people to live in our country and be allowed to enjoy life,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness.

Forgot to add that the NY Times,Globe,etc. wanted Nader to drop out because he was believed to be taking votes away from Gore. No different than Buchanan taking votes away from Bush. So, the Times and Globe were indeed being ultra-liberal in posting that. Nader and Buchanan had an equal chance of attaining the Presidency...No Chance In Hell(which is too bad......in Buchanan's case).



(edited by BigWhalebony on 1.8.02 2317)
Tom Dean
Bockwurst
Level: 50

Posts: 335/573
EXP: 904259
For next: 43065

Since: 30.8.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 3215 days
Last activity: 2584 days
AIM:  
#51 Posted on 2.8.02 0140.22
Reposted on: 2.8.09 0143.00

    Originally posted by BigWhalebony
    Puff Daschle...Deceptacons...If Pat Buchanan didn't get bushwhacked years ago by the LIBERAL media, he may have become President, and we would have killed off all threats to our country years ago


Sheesh. Where do we get these people?
ges7184
Lap cheong
Level: 76

Posts: 302/1493
EXP: 3904364
For next: 101715

Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 80 days
Last activity: 3 days
#52 Posted on 2.8.02 0142.55
Reposted on: 2.8.09 0151.23
A lot of the "liberal slant" comes in very subtle ways. It can be little things like in the Gary Condit case, newspapers would print Gary Condit (Rep-CA), leaving off the D which would be there whenever other politicians are mentioned (Rep would easily be mistaken for Republican). It also comes in the forms of guests (Liberal guest from a respected school or organization, conservative counterpart some whacko from radio or extremist group). I mean, I know on Crossfire (and I'm pretty sure they have new hosts now, so this is probably no longer the case), the Conservative was some goofy looking dude with ugly bow-ties (who the hell still wears bow-ties?) I know this board runs the whole political spectrum, so it may be better to say a "Democratic Party" slant instead of "liberal". It's not obvious, but it's there, and no one will ever convince me otherwise. However, Fox News has achieved some balance, considering that they slant conservative (or probably more correctly, toward Republicans).

However, I do agree with eviljonhunt, the bigger problem is that today's journalism just sucks in general. It's pure sensationalism, 24-7. Guess what, in the news lately, kidnappings and whales beaching themselves. News, probably. National news. No. But there it is, on every national news channel. And even stories done on important matters are genearally lazy. Nobody tries to find facts anymore. They just ask one person one thing, then ask another what they think about what the first person said. And back and forth. Nevermind that often there are facts within the statements that could actually be checked. That would require work, which apparently most journalists aren't willing to do anymore.
BigWhalebony
Bauerwurst
Level: 23

Posts: 37/96
EXP: 62259
For next: 5465

Since: 26.7.02
From: SALEM

Since last post: 3621 days
Last activity: 2583 days
#53 Posted on 2.8.02 0143.39
Reposted on: 2.8.09 0151.53

Massachusetts(pretty unbelievable considering the liberal slant of my state).
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 115

Posts: 299/3937
EXP: 16526392
For next: 285023

Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#54 Posted on 2.8.02 0241.06
Reposted on: 2.8.09 0243.03

    Originally posted by ges7184
    I mean, I know on Crossfire (and I'm pretty sure they have new hosts now, so this is probably no longer the case), the Conservative was some goofy looking dude with ugly bow-ties (who the hell still wears bow-ties?)


Nope, Tucker Carlson is still in full effect.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 109

Posts: 1303/3419
EXP: 13538304
For next: 421386

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 44 min.
Last activity: 5 min.
#55 Posted on 2.8.02 0608.43
Reposted on: 2.8.09 0618.13

    Originally posted by BigWhalebony
    To whomever started this thread:
    Man, I hope you don't believe any of that bull. I know you posted it, but why. You or any brainwashed left winger could've written that garbage. Actually it could've been in the New York Times or Boston Globe, which directly goes against the statement that the HardRight of the Republican Party has taken control of much of the conglomerate-owned media. What a crock. Liberals run the media and always have. If you need research on the subject, I have a 35 page paper I wrote for my Communication Research class. And Sen. Jim Jeffords is a coward and a liar. He would not be a senator right now if he ran under the correct banner. He ran as a Republican. It's a sham. Puff Daschle wouldn't have any power right now and neither would the Deceptacons. Jeffords revealed himself as a Deceptacon(Independent my ass) because it afforded HIM more power. It did nothing to help anyone, but himself. Hopefully nothing like that will happen again. Revealing yourself to be a member of a different party after you have been elected as a member of another party is bold face lying to your constituents about everything that you previously told them you believed in. Anyway that happened in May and had nothing to do with the war on terror.

    I will admit this particular article you have cut and paste(or written yourself perhaps) is just as bad as Bill O'Reilly's statements for the right. He's just as bad as the PTC.

    Anyhoo, if the Hard Right were truly running this country we would have bombed every known terrorists group known to mankind years ago. We freakin know the exact caves Bin Laden has recorded his videos in. We have the technology to find and bomb the hell out of any threat to our country. Powell is hardly the Hard Right and he is the one that has been preventing us from going all out. If Pat Buchanan didn't get bushwhacked years ago by the LIBERAL media, he may have become President, and we would have killed off all threats to our country years ago. We also probably would have slowed immigration to our country and been more careful in accepting other people to live in our country and be allowed to enjoy life,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness.

    Forgot to add that the NY Times,Globe,etc. wanted Nader to drop out because he was believed to be taking votes away from Gore. No different than Buchanan taking votes away from Bush. So, the Times and Globe were indeed being ultra-liberal in posting that. Nader and Buchanan had an equal chance of attaining the Presidency...No Chance In Hell(which is too bad......in Buchanan's case).



    (edited by BigWhalebony on 1.8.02 2317)



I find it amazing how many people, rather than counter the examples in the original post or tell us why they're wrong, simply respnd by saying "Gasp! That's..."LIBERAL"!"
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 415/2042
EXP: 6248052
For next: 144747

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2942 days
Last activity: 156 days
#56 Posted on 2.8.02 1032.20
Reposted on: 2.8.09 1038.42
I'm always amused when I see people reducing "LIBERALS!!!" to a caricature. Many portray it as a binary issue: either you're a Real Conservative or you're one of THEM. As if there weren't a thousand shades of gray in every issue. As if all liberals march in lockstep, taking the same stand on every issue, and proudly opposing all that is good and pure and American. As if it wasn't possible to lean left on some issues, center on some, and right on others and still have a consistent political philosophy. As if no liberal has ever had a good idea, made a good point, or been right on any issue.

Nah. It's much easier to demonize the opponent as little cackling cartoon characters, plotting in a smoke-filled room in California and developing new methods of destroying Good Ol' Fashioned American Values and All That Proud God-Fearing Americans Stand For.

"The truth is, I've gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would receive... I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage - all we could have ever wanted. For heaven's sake, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that." -- Pat Buchanan, 1996
Bizzle Izzle
Bockwurst
Level: 49

Posts: 41/560
EXP: 880123
For next: 3766

Since: 26.6.02
From: New Jersey, USA

Since last post: 155 days
Last activity: 155 days
#57 Posted on 2.8.02 1034.28
Reposted on: 2.8.09 1041.07

    Originally posted by Jakegnosis

      Very good point. There were much better ways to go about rooting out Al Qaeda than indiscriminately killing everything that moves with gigantic bombs. That's like burning down an entire neighborhood to take out a crack house.

    Where do you people come up with this kind of stuff? Killing evereything that moves? With the exception of the recent bombing of the wedding (who were firing guns in celebration) where is the evidence that we kill "everything that moves"? Is there evidence? I haven't seen it. There are a lot of wacky conspiracy theorists in both the left and the right, and seems like the theorists in the left are the ones talking about the USA covering up civilian attacks. I say show me proof. Someone posted earlier that we killed more civilians than al-qaeda. show me the proof that we killed 3000 INNOCENT people. And not just heresay and circumstantial "reports". the internet is full of rumors about coverups, but somewhat empty of actual facts.
    It's true the CIA funnelled money into afghanaistan during the soviet occupation but al-qaeda didn't exist back then. the taliban is (relatively) new too. yes, sure it was wrong for us to leave them (afghan people) high and dry. but if we had gone in after the soviets left and helped set up a gov't, the same people that complain and post about the USA setting up pro-american regimes in foreign countries (afghanistan, karzi) would have complained then too.
    On a different note: Sen Jeffords is a traitor to the people of his home state who voted him in. He is a coward and a greedy worm. the people voted for a REPUBLICAN Jeffords, not an "independant" Daschle ass-kissing jeffords.
Jakegnosis
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 82/645
EXP: 1084164
For next: 72962

Since: 26.7.02
From: Maine

Since last post: 2770 days
Last activity: 2754 days
#58 Posted on 2.8.02 1253.10
Reposted on: 2.8.09 1259.08

    Originally posted by Bizzle Izzle[quotemid

Where do you people come up with this kind of stuff? Killing evereything that moves? With the exception of the recent bombing of the wedding (who were firing guns in celebration) where is the evidence that we kill "everything that moves"? Is there evidence? I haven't seen it. There are a lot of wacky conspiracy theorists in both the left and the right, and seems like the theorists in the left are the ones talking about the USA covering up civilian attacks. I say show me proof. Someone posted earlier that we killed more civilians than al-qaeda. show me the proof that we killed 3000 INNOCENT people. And not just heresay and circumstantial "reports". the internet is full of rumors about coverups, but somewhat empty of actual facts.



Where is the evidence that we kill everything that moves? Well, I'd say that AC-130s and B-52s unloading massive amounts of ordinance into urban centers pretty much kills everything that moves, wouldn't you?

I suppose I can't give you proof, per se, because any article I referred you to would only be dismissed as hysteria by the "liberal media." Most reports I consider reputable put civ casualties at about 3500-4000, and I would consider that pretty conservative. I never met any of the Navy and Air Force pilots that were involved in the bombings, because they got to go back to cozy bases at the end of the day instead of sleeping in the bush and humping their shit across the countryside like real soldiers, but I can tell you that I saw a whole lot of dead people. I saw dead kids and dead women and dead old people, and I'm pretty fucking sure they weren't soldiers.

But, obviously, you won't take the word of the "liberal media," and I guess my opinion as a soldier who did a bunch of shit over there doesn't matter either, so you can just go about your business and believe what you want to. I'll admit that I didn't hump across Afghanistan counting dead civs, but I do have the common sense to know that bombing population centers with fucking daisy cutters usually kills a lot of the people who live there, civ or soldier or terrorist or whatever. Bombs don't discriminate, unlike a real soldier on the ground, which is why this operation should have been run primarily with MI, specops units and infantry. So, don't take the word of the commie media or a soldier who was there. Go ahead and believe whatever helps you get through the day and keeps your faith that the fuckers in charge of this country are rational and moral people. The greatest thing about this country is that people can believe whatever they want to.

Another thing, while I'm ranting. How could we possibly not have killed more civs than Al-Qaeda? The fact is, Al-Qaeda is a small organization. The Taliban and the Al-Qaeda are not the same thing. The Taliban leaders are in bed with the Al-Qaeda, sure, but the average Taliban soldier doesn't have a clue about any of that shit. They don't have a huge media to tell them shit, they just believe whatever their asshole commanders tell them, and they really were just pissed that all these US soldiers were suddenly razing their country to the ground. I'd probably be pissed too, but I'm not sorry about them getting shot- they were soldiers and that's the damn job. What I am sorry about is all the Afghani civs that got killed without a clue as to why. They lived under a godawful, repressive regime, and a lot of them ended up getting killed by our bombs, while over here we crowed about how we were freeing them from an evil empire. Some freedom.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 211

Posts: 1033/16099
EXP: 138684773
For next: 47093

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#59 Posted on 2.8.02 1311.18
Reposted on: 2.8.09 1312.18

    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    I find it amazing how many people, rather than counter the examples in the original post or tell us why they're wrong, simply respnd by saying "Gasp! That's..."LIBERAL"!"
That's funny, 'cause *I* find it amazing that you expect serious response to such ludicrous left-wing propaganda which appeared to have been posted for the mere purpose of trolling (and thanks to OFB for at least being man enough to admit it - but still, hopefully next time it won't "work so well" on some of you)
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 494/1180
EXP: 2742997
For next: 126761

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3384 days
Last activity: 3378 days
#60 Posted on 2.8.02 1415.54
Reposted on: 2.8.09 1429.01
"What I am sorry about is all the Afghani civs that got killed without a clue as to why. They lived under a godawful, repressive regime, and a lot of them ended up getting killed by our bombs, while over here we crowed about how we were freeing them from an evil empire. Some freedom."

Yeah, but a LOT more were freed than were bombed, right? I mean, it's not like we went through Afghanistan like the *Einsastzgruppen* and shot thousands of innocent people and kicked their lifeless bodies into mass graves, right? Sheesh. In war, innocent people sometimes have to die in order to get the bad guy, especially when the bad guy tries to hide himself within groups of innocent people! That's just the best you can do sometimes when trying to minimize your own casualities first. Sure, I guess it would be *nice* of an army to worry about the opposing side's non-military casualities before their own, but I don't see why it *has* to be that way.

DMC
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 NextThread ahead: Caveat Emptor
Next thread: Georgie's vacation
Previous thread: New mutual fund
(2036 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - 20 Things We've Learned Since 9/11Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.197 seconds.