Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

And I think it's pretty clear that you live in a fog, and reality is not clear to you. Seriously. Perhaps you should stick to speaking for yourself. I, for one, would appreciate it.

:rolleyes:

Get a grip lady, you'd have to be a goddamn twit to conclude you've seriously opposed your country's involvement in Iraq in any rational way, shape or form.

This forum is thick with threads that are filled with your arguments against opponents to this war.

I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical,
a liberal, oh fanatical criminal

  • Replies 224
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest American Woman
Posted

Get a grip lady, you'd have to be a goddamn twit to conclude you've seriously opposed your country's involvement in Iraq in any rational way, shape or form.

This forum is thick with threads that are filled with your arguments against opponents to this war.

"Goddamn twit," eh?

Apparently you have an anger management problem along with your inability to see clearly. But do have a nice day. :)

Posted (edited)

Good God. Yeah leftists are known for being anti-war but that doesn't make all leftists anti-war and it doens't make it necessary to be anti-war to be a leftist. So you are essentially saying that you can't argue that it was justified because it was a failure?

Aren't you being ridiculous for just looking at the war? Can't you look at the aid aspect of it too? And acknowledge that some on the left can disagree with you?

A leftist could have opposed the war to begin with but look at it now and say that aid is helping at least some. To dismiss everything and say it has had no positive affect on anyone in the country is a bit one sided to me.

As far as leftists saying that the US could have aided Afghanistan after the Soviets left. Do you want me to list my friends that have said this?? Is it that much of a stretch that some on the left would like to have seen Afghanistan not left to the Taliban with no foreign aid or anything at all to help them make their lives better?

Your last paragraph makes no sense. At no point did I close my eyes to anything. You concentrated (and still do) purely on the war side of what is happening and I'm pointing out that there is also aid, nation building. If you can't really see that I'm trying to add balance to the discussion you are the one that is closing their eyes and not me. I know the war has been terrible on Afghans as a whole but you can't ignore that some have been helped but some of the aid going in.

How am I blaming the left for any of this? I was saying that people on the left might disagree with you. And of course your Fox news comment just backs up my case. I kinda assumed that you would label everyone that isn't as left-wing as you are as a Republican or Neo-conservative.

it's like you're asking me if we should support a criminal who has 'tried to' tidy the living room and wash the dishes after he has robbed a house. i'm not going to sit here and try to get into a ridiculous debate with you on your irrational thought process.

the question is whether or not supporting to go to war in afghanistan would be supported by a so-called leftist. do any of your so-called leftist friends support the afghanistan war? what about the israeli wars? what about u.s. and canada's support for israel's wars? are those the characteristics of a leftist?

in a rational and logical world, american woman is not considered leftist based on her stance on the above that i've listed.

Edited by bud
Posted

"Goddamn twit," eh?

Apparently you have an anger management problem along with your inability to see clearly. But do have a nice day. :)

Okay, smell ya later.

I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical,
a liberal, oh fanatical criminal

Posted

it's like you're asking me if we should support a criminal who has 'tried to' tidy the living room and wash the dishes after he has robbed the house. i'm not going to sit here and try to get into a ridiculous debate with you and your irrational thought process.

the question is whether or not supporting to go to war in afghanistan would be supported by a so-called leftist. do any of your so-called leftist friends support the afghanistan war? what about the israeli wars? what about u.s. and canada's support for the israel's wars? are those the characteristics of a leftist?

I'm not asking you to support anything. I'm not asking any leftist to support anything (war or otherwise). I was saying that some of the left would disagree with you and you don't have a monopoly on left-wing views. If you want to brush me off as irrational for pointing out that others on the left may see things slightly different than you...well, than you don't see your own irrationality or closed-mindedness.

Posted (edited)

I'm not asking you to support anything. I'm not asking any leftist to support anything (war or otherwise). I was saying that some of the left would disagree with you and you don't have a monopoly on left-wing views. If you want to brush me off as irrational for pointing out that others on the left may see things slightly different than you...well, than you don't see your own irrationality or closed-mindedness.

do your leftist friends support:

a) the afghanistan war

B) israel's wars on the palestinians and on lebanon

c) u.s. and canada's support for israel considering their actions

Edited by bud
Posted (edited)
Has anyone heard a word from the Taliban and all those Muslim people self-appointed champions?

Why do you care what the Taliban thinks about anything?

You are surprised that the Taliban is hypocritical?

Edited by The_Squid
Posted

do your leftist friends support:

a) the afghanistan war

B) israel's wars on the palestinians and on lebanon

c) u.s. and canada's support for israel considering their actions

Do you want me to email them and ask them?

Posted

i want you to stop being ridiculous.

Good luck with that one!

WWWTT

Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!

Posted

No actually the way I remember it the US was becoming frustrated the Viet Cong continueslly fled into Laos and Cambodia.So Nixon ended up bombing what they believed was the Ho Che Min trail through those countries.Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.

By the end of 1967, the VC were no more for all practical purposes; decimated by Tet and several very effective S&D operations, leaving only the NVA...troops of another nation...to do the 'freedom fighting' in the South. The Ho Chi Minh Trail was a fact since the 1950s when the North first started sending THEIR military into Laos and Cambodia on the way south.

Maybe the numbers are off but they are still up there.

Bombing the Trail didn't cost 100s of thousands of civilian dead in two already troubled countries with actual invasions from North Viet-Nam going on. The Trail(s) was running through dense jungle along the border for a reason. Certainly part of the mayhem but certainly not the sole vector of misery in Indochina. But, you're free to provide figures proving me wrong.

May I point out aswell that the US invaded Vietnam.

WWWTT

Uhhh...no they didn't. The US sent in the Marines to protect the SVN/US airbases that were being attacked by the North with SVN approval. When the North continued to operate in these areas, the Marines began S&D operations to clear them out. This led to troop escalation on BOTH sides as the US ramped up the feet on the ground and the North pushed entire divisions south along the Trail.

Posted

Uhhh...no they didn't. The US sent in the Marines to protect the SVN/US airbases that were being attacked by the North with SVN approval. When the North continued to operate in these areas, the Marines began S&D operations to clear them out. This led to troop escalation on BOTH sides as the US ramped up the feet on the ground and the North pushed entire divisions south along the Trail.

Uh....Well...There was that little Gulf of Tonkin "incident" (see: the Reichstag Fire,as a point of reference) that acted as a trigger...

The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!

Posted (edited)

Uh....Well...There was that little Gulf of Tonkin "incident" (see: the Reichstag Fire,as a point of reference) that acted as a trigger...

That's not why troops were sent to South Viet-Nam. The Gulf of Tonkin opened the door for air operations in the North...which started before any regular US troops were on the ground. The US had been in the area since 1959 or so as advisors, trainers, aircraft pilots (Trojans mainly) and helicopter pilots (CH-21s and CH-34s).

Edited by DogOnPorch
Posted

That's not why troops were sent to South Viet-Nam. The Gulf of Tonkin opened the door for air operations in the North...which started before any regular US troops were on the ground. The US had been in the area since 1959 or so as advisors, trainers, aircraft pilots (Trojans mainly) and helicopter pilots (CH-21s and CH-34s).

Right...It was a trigger to escalate the war...And,like the Reichstag Fire,a well known "false flag" event....

The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!

Posted (edited)

Right...It was a trigger to escalate the war...And,like the Reichstag Fire,a well known "false flag" event....

Only the second part of the Gulf of Tonkin is suspected of being a so-called false flag operation. Either way, the North was being pretty cocky in the South already. About a decade already... Some posters forget this little tid bit. Ever so keen on painting the USA as EVIL (Darth Vader breathing), they toss their hat into the ring with a country that invaded 3 other neutral countries to achieve its ends with good ol' Russia helping from the shadows. All the while, patting themselves on the back for a job well done at getting the US out of Indochina at the cost of untold millions in the Killing Fields and during the Boat People era.

It makes me chuckle.

:D

Edited by DogOnPorch
Posted

Only the second part of the Gulf of Tonkin is suspected of being a so-called false flag operation. Either way, the North was being pretty cocky in the South already. About a decade already... Some posters forget this little tid bit. Ever so keen on painting the USA as EVIL (Darth Vader breathing), they toss their hat into the ring with a country that invaded 3 other neutral countries to achieve its ends with good ol' Russia helping from the shadows. All the while, patting themselves on the back for a job well done at getting the US out of Indochina at the cost of untold millions in the Killing Fields and during the Boat People era.

It makes me chuckle.

:D

I'll bet those boat people were'nt chuckling...

And both were/are "evil",just different versions of it.One was a follower of a horrible dehumanizing idealogy.The other used the sales pitch of being beacon of freedom while propping up bloodthirsty Fascist dictators to grow the influence of the empire...

The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!

Posted

Uhhh...no they didn't. The US sent in the Marines to protect the SVN/US airbases that were being attacked by the North with SVN approval. When the North continued to operate in these areas, the Marines began S&D operations to clear them out. This led to troop escalation on BOTH sides as the US ramped up the feet on the ground and the North pushed entire divisions south along the Trail.

Oh OK then I guess the Soviets did not invade Afganistan either,they were invited over to help the then ruling party.

And as far as stats go,I rather take the word from the people who are from there as opposed to wikileaks(america)

WWWTT

Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!

Posted (edited)

I'll bet those boat people were'nt chuckling...

And both were/are "evil",just different versions of it.One was a follower of a horrible dehumanizing idealogy.The other used the sales pitch of being beacon of freedom while propping up bloodthirsty Fascist dictators to grow the influence of the empire...

Diem was fighting his own war against various armed religious armies while ramming Roman Catholic rules down the Buddhists' throats. His enemies were equally bloodthirsty at times. But, he truely prefered the role of playboy along with his Westernized sister-in-law. Shopping in Paris saved her skin. But Diem was better than the Commies, it turned out.

Edited by DogOnPorch
Posted (edited)

Diem was fighting his own war against various armed religious armies while ramming Roman Catholic rules down the Buddhists' throats. His enemies were equally bloodthirsty at times. But, he truely prefered the role of playboy along with his Westernized sister-in-law. Shopping in Paris saved her skin. But Diem was better than the Commies, it turned out.

By just a bit...

But was Mobuto Sese Seko better than Patrice Lamumba?

The bloodthirsty Fasci...er...Vanguards of Freedom made sure that would'nt happen....

Edited by Jack Weber

The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!

Posted (edited)

By just a bit...

But was Mobuto Sese Seko better than Patrice Lamumba?

The bloodthirsty Fasci...er Vanguards of Freedom made sure that would'nt happen....

Ultimately, I prefer Saigon to Ho Chi Minh City. Plus, I'll take an F-4J over a MiG-21 any day.

:)

Edited by DogOnPorch
Posted

Ultimately, I prefer Saigon to Ho Chi Minh City. Plus, I'll take an F-4J over a MiG-21 any day.

:)

Fair enough,but,one would also prefer an elected President over a murderous dictator with a God complex and the dungeon of the Mai 20 Stadium (except for the Rumble in the Jungle)

The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!

Posted

Fair enough,but,one would also prefer an elected President over a murderous dictator with a God complex and the dungeon of the Mai 20 Stadium (except for the Rumble in the Jungle)

Jack...you're wiser than this. This isn't that scene from 'Miss Congeniality' where the contestants all wish for World Peace.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      11,015
    • Most Online
      2,945

    Newest Member
    agackibal
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...