The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think when you do volunteer, you are doing so under the belief that you will only be used when necessary to protect our country. One of the saddest elements to this war is how it has decimated our military and forced them to dramatically lower standards to make recruiting goals.

It's that kind of thinking that indicates that the civilian population at large (and perhaps the military as well) knows little of what you're actually signing up to do.

Originally Posted by Enlistment Oath

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Originally Posted by Oath for Commissioned Officers

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Your idea of being used when necessary is not the same as mine. Note that in both oaths, military personnel pledge to obey the orders of the President of the United States. There is no oath pledging to be used only in "necessary" wars.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't think we'd know how it effects our
military.

Your earlier point was that you knew enough to realize it was very sad. Perhaps you were just being melodramatic.

I guess it's just crazy to think being stupid and a criminal would {not} be a negative when being given a job with a ton of responsibility.

Maybe the standards were too high because I don't see the dramatic dropoff that you assume must be happening.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think when you do volunteer, you are doing so under the belief that you will only be used when necessary to protect our country. One of the saddest elements to this war is how it has decimated our military and forced them to dramatically lower standards to make recruiting goals.

Yeah, that whole draft thing in WWII was required because people just didn't know where the recruiting office were, right? Same in WWI, right? Because those wars were just, so according to your theory, recruitment should not have been an issue.

Please. No one likes to go to war, but it's a necessary evil. There's enough people who volunteer that a draft isn't required right now. They just have to work a bit longer to find the individuals.

Also, insinuating that somehow the current soldiers have somehow met a lower standard or needed that lower standard is pretty insulting to those who volunteer to fight for your right to speak your mind.

[Flasch186]

eh, thats factual. I have no idea if it's happened or not BUT if a minimum score on something is lowered, than its lowered...no point in arguing something that you cant.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

eh, thats factual. I have no idea if it's happened or not BUT if a minimum score on something is lowered, than its lowered...no point in arguing something that you cant.

I guess it's easier for Rainmaker to justify his statements by saying the current recruits are either recruits who wouldn't have met previous standards or recruits who are criminals.

For anyone foolish to believe what Rainmaker is feeding you concerning current recruits, I'd suggest watching a documentary called 'The Recruiter'. It's currently on HBO On Demand and also is shown on their various channels here and there. While it does accurately portray the challenges that current recruiters face, it also shows that many of the recruits that are volunteering even now didn't need the standards lowered and certainly aren't criminals. It also notes that lowering the standards really hasn't changed the recruiting as far as letting people in who didn't meet the previous standard. The few that have got in via the lower standard often don't make it through boot camp, so the military avoids those recruits for the most part despite the lower standard rule remaining in place.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I guess it's easier for Rainmaker to justify his statements by saying the current recruits are either recruits who wouldn't have met previous standards or recruits who are criminals.

For anyone foolish to believe what Rainmaker is feeding you concerning current recruits, I'd suggest watching a documentary called 'The Recruiter'. It's currently on HBO On Demand and also is shown on their various channels here and there. While it does accurately portray the challenges that current recruiters face, it also shows that many of the recruits that are volunteering even now didn't need the standards lowered and certainly aren't criminals. It also notes that lowering the standards really hasn't changed the recruiting as far as letting people in who didn't meet the previous standard. The few that have got in via the lower standard often don't make it through boot camp, so the military avoids those recruits for the most part despite the lower standard rule remaining in place.

Those are called Air Force recruits.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I guess it's easier for Rainmaker to justify his statements by saying the current recruits are either recruits who wouldn't have met previous standards or recruits who are criminals.

For anyone foolish to believe what Rainmaker is feeding you concerning current recruits, I'd suggest watching a documentary called 'The Recruiter'. It's currently on HBO On Demand and also is shown on their various channels here and there. While it does accurately portray the challenges that current recruiters face, it also shows that many of the recruits that are volunteering even now didn't need the standards lowered and certainly aren't criminals. It also notes that lowering the standards really hasn't changed the recruiting as far as letting people in who didn't meet the previous standard. The few that have got in via the lower standard often don't make it through boot camp, so the military avoids those recruits for the most part despite the lower standard rule remaining in place.

The military is the one that put the restrictions on intelligence and criminal records on the books. They are the ones that felt that lower intelligence and prior crimes were detrimental to their force. You can argue that it has no effect, but the military apparently feels otherwise.

And if these people never get through boot camp, the military would have never lowered the requirements. Fact is that the military was having a tough time bringing in new recruits. You can base your stats off a couple recruiters in an HBO documentary, but the actual numbers put out by the military differ. They had a 54% increase in recruits with 'serious criminal misconduct' (a term the military uses). There have been reports of increases in neo-nazis, skinheads, and gang members being accepted.

The point is that if you don't send these people into bullshit wars, you don't have issues recruiting the best and the brightest (the military was recruiting much better recruits prior to Iraq). Then perhaps you don't end up with the Steven Green's of the world putting other soldiers at risk.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Yeah, that whole draft thing in WWII was required because people just didn't know where the recruiting office were, right? Same in WWI, right? Because those wars were just, so according to your theory, recruitment should not have been an issue.

World War II required 16 million active military personnel. We currently have 1.4 million. Considering that 16 million was a much larger percent of the country and the draft had little resistance, the comparision is crazy.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Please. No one likes to go to war, but it's a necessary evil. There's enough people who volunteer that a draft isn't required right now. They just have to work a bit longer to find the individuals.

That's the keyword, necessary. This wasn't necessary. If this war was necessary to the safety of our country and your family, you would be fighting in it. Hell, half this board would be fighting in it.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Also, insinuating that somehow the current soldiers have somehow met a lower standard or needed that lower standard is pretty insulting to those who volunteer to fight for your right to speak your mind.

I'm not insinuating that all soldiers are in that classification. In fact, most of them are not. But it is a fact that the standards for joining the military have been reduced and that they are allowing in less intelligent and criminally mischevious people. If anything, I feel bad for the elite soldiers who have to be put next to this new lower standard.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Your earlier point was that you knew enough to realize it was very sad. Perhaps you were just being melodramatic.

Maybe the standards were too high because I don't see the dramatic dropoff that you assume must be happening.

It's my personal opinion that enlisting dumber people and criminals is not good for the military. Without us having in-depth knowledge of how the military is functioning, we can never know for sure. But I'm basing my belief on the fact that the military set those guidelines for a reason in the first place under the believe that those falling under it would be detrimental.

If Stanford decided to lower their admission standards, I would assume that the overall quality of the school would go down.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The point is that if you don't send these people into bullshit wars, you don't have issues recruiting the best and the brightest (the military was recruiting much better recruits prior to Iraq). Then perhaps you don't end up with the Steven Green's of the world putting other soldiers at risk.

And anyone who considers Iraq a 'bullshit war' has little connection with reality.

I'm going to cut off at this point on this tangent because it's obvious that you're an Obama supporter looking to use Bush as a distraction to the topic in this thread IMO. I'd prefer to discuss the current administration and their performance.

[Flasch186]

um, your an Obama opponent so isn't it pot and kettle? It's not like youre the neutral referee. Plus after 29 pages it's not like it's the first time this thread has shifted gears, certainly wont be the last. anyways, Im sure you'll find a nice right wing Blog to post something about negative about the admin tomorrow.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's the keyword, necessary. This wasn't necessary. If this war was necessary to the safety of our country and your family, you would be fighting in it. Hell, half this board would be fighting in it.

This is a basic fundamental difference in ideology. What the US has done with the GWOT has saved us all the trouble of fighting a "neccessary" war that even liberals could get behind.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

um, your an Obama opponent so isn't it pot and kettle?

Which obviously is not an accurate assessment of my position. I am a huge detractor of Obama's economic positions. I'm a big supporter of most of his social positions. Also, this is a thread about Obama, is it not? There's several existing threads concerning the Bush administration if Rainmaker is more interested in that.

[Flasch186]

Dutch, Libs were behind the war in great amounts when it was based on the false info when we didnt know it was false. When the info finally came out to be spun, false, or lies most Libs and some conservatives peeled off of the support. Unfortunately most agree that we took our eye off the real ball to support W's revenge push against Saddam. That being said, we all know who was right and who was wrong but it's hindsight. Now we have the here and now and we'll see Obama does with it (Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pirates, N. Korea, etc.).

MBBF, excuse me for doubting almost anything that you type since youve 'lied', had faux shock, spun factual data, and been on the wrong sides of outcomes so many times that Im not sure you'll ever have a soapbox let alone a pillar to stand on, no offense....obviously.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

That being said, we all know who was right and who was wrong but it's hindsight.

We do?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's my personal opinion that enlisting dumber people and criminals is not good for the military. Without us having in-depth knowledge of how the military is functioning, we can never know for sure. But I'm basing my belief on the fact that the military set those guidelines for a reason in the first place under the believe that those falling under it would be detrimental.

If Stanford decided to lower their admission standards, I would assume that the overall quality of the school would go down.

You can check out the *.mil pages for better information than you ever could from their *.com recruting counterparts. And certainly better information than you could get from CNN (Body Counts only!) or Fox News (Support the Troops only!).

The United States Army Homepage
http://www.marines.mil/Pages/Default.aspx
Air Force Link - Home
Navy.mil the Official Web Site of the United States Navy

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

We do?

yes, based on the why we went to war we were wrong. Change the why and we could be right but the why, being WMD, was wrong. Anyways....

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

This is a basic fundamental difference in ideology. What the US has done with the GWOT has saved us all the trouble of fighting a "neccessary" war that even liberals could get behind.

I'm not talking about the GWOT, I'm talking about the war in Iraq.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

And anyone who considers Iraq a 'bullshit war' has little connection with reality.

I'm going to cut off at this point on this tangent because it's obvious that you're an Obama supporter looking to use Bush as a distraction to the topic in this thread IMO. I'd prefer to discuss the current administration and their performance.

I'm not an Obama supporter. Being against Bush doesn't make you an Obama supporter.

If it isn't a bullshit war, why not go fight in it? Since this is so vital to our country's future, you should be all gung ho about it. Having other people's kids/spouses/siblings/friends fight in a war for your ideologies while you sit at home is just plain cowardly.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Dutch, Libs were behind the war in great amounts when it was based on the false info when we didnt know it was false. When the info finally came out to be spun, false, or lies most Libs and some conservatives peeled off of the support. Unfortunately most agree that we took our eye off the real ball to support W's revenge push against Saddam. That being said, we all know who was right and who was wrong but it's hindsight. Now we have the here and now and we'll see Obama does with it (Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pirates, N. Korea, etc.).

I don't believe now, in hindsight, that this was simply Bush getting revenge against Saddam. That's the lie today and who's pushing that garbage? Who's cherrypicking the information now?

The reality remains that the actual true liar here was Saddam Hussein. He duped his own Generals into believing that "other" units would be firing WMD's at incoming American forces, that's why all the Republican guard troops had chemical masks. Iraqi's own Generals believed it.

As time goes on and as the Bush administration will continually be dogged for this, we will forget the reality of the situation in Iraq before it was freed of that "non-secular free thinker" (as the liberals claim him to be now) named Saddam Hussein.

"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
During an interview on CBS Evening News with Dan Rather
September 13, 2001

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
Speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies
October 7, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."

President Clinton
Oval Office Address to the American People
December 16, 1998

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003

Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed into law by President Clinton, states:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm not talking about the GWOT, I'm talking about the war in Iraq.

Iraq was part of the GWOT.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Iraq was part of the GWOT.

In fantasy land perhaps, but Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorism. Bin Laden hated Saddam and vice versa.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

In fantasy land perhaps, but Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorism. Bin Laden hated Saddam and vice versa.

No evidence, that's true.

But...

Associated Press
February 13, 1999

Bin Laden reportedly leaves Afghanistan, whereabouts unknown

Osama bin Laden, the Saudi millionaire accused by the United States of plotting bomb attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, has left Afghanistan, Afghan sources said Saturday.

Taliban authorities in the militia's southern stronghold of Kandahar refused to either confirm or deny reports that bin Laden had left the country.

Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.

Despite repeated demands from Washington, the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden after the August 7 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, demanding proof of his involvement in terrorist activities.

The Taliban did promise that bin Laden would not use Afghanistan as a staging arena for terrorist activities.

...just sayin...

But in any event, there are other terrorists out there that did have Saddam's full funded support (read: Hezbollah suicide bombing campaign against Jews in 2001/2002). So that's good enough of a establlished role in terrorism for me.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I don't believe now, in hindsight, that this was simply Bush getting revenge against Saddam. That's the lie today and who's pushing that garbage? Who's cherrypicking the information now?

The reality remains that the actual true liar here was Saddam Hussein. He duped his own Generals into believing that "other" units would be firing WMD's at incoming American forces, that's why all the Republican guard troops had chemical masks. Iraqi's own Generals believed it.

As time goes on and as the Bush administration will continually be dogged for this, we will forget the reality of the situation in Iraq before it was freed of that "non-secular free thinker" (as the liberals claim him to be now) named Saddam Hussein.

Count me IN the block of people who thought it was a "slam dunk". Count me IN the group of people that would have supported the war on simply genocidal reasons. Count me IN the group of people who knows now that the administration cut out dissenting information and touted supporting info in the race to war.

There is evidence that it is NOT true that Saddam had any link at all to 9/11 and if being happy it happened is a crime than there are millions of people all over the world who are criminals (I happen to hate that they would feel that way but it is not criminal....they just suck )

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Right, the lower standards only means it may take a bit more effort of NCO's to bring the best out of new recruits. I hope nobody is sad because they think the American NCO's and new recruits have let them down.

I don't want anyone to take this the wrong way, but we need people of all intelligence ranges in the military. Just like having too many people that are highly intelligent at a company is not good because each decision is debated, in the military you need people that will just follow orders to the best of their ability.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Count me IN the group of people who knows now that the administration cut out dissenting information and touted supporting info in the race to war.

Which administration doesn't do this? I mean hell, let's look at the recent stimulus bill. Did anyone in the administration say anything about it not really being felt for at least a couple years down the road? Have they talked about the ramifications 5-10 years down the road of the spending package? Which is worse, fighting a war that has cost lives, or instituting policies that will hurt the standard of living and possibly harm countless more lives (make it more difficult for people to attend college, lead to higher, more oppressive taxes, "idealistic" policies that force people to do something, etc.)?

[Flasch186]

I dont think any of the latter things will happen {shrug}...

more money available for student loans,
higher taxes back to the clinton era
I dont think tax rates during the Clinton era were oppressive

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I dont think any of the latter things will happen {shrug}...

more money available for student loans,
higher taxes back to the clinton era
I dont think tax rates during the Clinton era were oppressive

True, but it could also be worse with the amount that they are spending. Plus, I do not think student loans are a great idea. When you have more racked up in loans than you can afford to pay back with your degree/job, you are in trouble.

I think taxes will be worse than they were under Clinton, eventually. Plus, I think the whole nanny state possibilities are worse than anything else. Still, we've been headed down that path for a while.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

No evidence, that's true.

But...





...just sayin...

But in any event, there are other terrorists out there that did have Saddam's full funded support (read: Hezbollah suicide bombing campaign against Jews in 2001/2002). So that's good enough of a establlished role in terrorism for me.

Tasteless paintings and comments are not a reason to go to war and sacrifice thousands of lives.

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Out of all the countries in the Middle East, he was probably the least connected to terrorism.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

yes, based on the why we went to war we were wrong. Change the why and we could be right but the why, being WMD, was wrong. Anyways....

Hmm, two essential problems with your statement.

One, much of the issues people had with the war fell along ideological lines, and they still do. Nothing much has changed in the time since, except that pretty much everyone agrees that no one really knows for sure (including, sadly enough it seems, the administration) what the truth is or was.

Second, you're talking about who is "right" and "wrong", when discussing opinion. Regardless of the issue being discussed, I just think that's poor and incorrect terminology to be using.

[Flasch186]

CR you could be right, I shouldve said used accurate reasoning perhaps. good point though.

on the first case Im not sure if it was ideological to the masses, perhaps it was to most but it wasnt to me. I believed in the goods I was sold instead of the deep seeded ideology lying underneath but I do recognize your point that it couldve been a neoconic issue for many people outside my bubble.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

CR you could be right, I shouldve said used accurate reasoning perhaps. good point though.

on the first case Im not sure if it was ideological to the masses, perhaps it was to most but it wasnt to me. I believed in the goods I was sold instead of the deep seeded ideology lying underneath but I do recognize your point that it couldve been a neoconic issue for many people outside my bubble.

You're not necessarily wrong. I think it's more word choice/semantics. For you, you may feel confident about what happened in that time. For me, not so much, so much still feels unanswered, or what we have comes from obviously biased sources on either side of the issue. Everything was so divisive on this issue, it was (and still is) hard to find a clean perspective. It's further muddled by the fact that the Iraq situation has improved dramatically since the surge, leading some to a "ends justify the means" situation, which of course, is also faulty reasoning.

In the end, I just feel like we don't know crap, and sometimes I think it's going to end up like the Kennedy assassination, where 50 years from now, people are asking what did Bush really know and believe? Was it mistaken belief in flawed information or dogged dedication to an ideological stance in spite of the evidence or conspiratorial manipulation for unsavory reasons ranging from cronyism to economics to revenge.

So it's tough for me to accept with any certainty that we know "right" or "wrong" with the situation. Just glad at this point that, as a country, I think we're at a point where we can begin to move on.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Tasteless paintings and comments are not a reason to go to war and sacrifice thousands of lives.

We discovered that painting after the war, btw, see all the "criminals and idiots" in uniform standing next to it? The comments were made by Democrats, I can assure you that we didn't go to war because of what those chuckleheads said, just pointing out how the reality has changed a bit.

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Out of all the countries in the Middle East, he was probably the least connected to terrorism.

GOTW is not just 9/11. Just like WWII wasn't just Pearl Harbor. WWI wasn't just the assassination of Ferdinand (or whatever that guys name was). There are many reasons.

BTW, did you check out the links to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines?

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't think we'd know how it effects our military. I guess it's just crazy to think being stupid and a criminal would be a negative when being given a job with a ton of responsibility.

Can they shoot good?

How do you define stupid? Even if the average IQ is lower in today's US Armed Forces versus the group in 2002, does that make people who are still of average intelligence stupid?

Also, in today's U.S.A. defining criminal can be a point of perception depending upon what laws you break.

Bottom line, there is nothing wrong with the soldiers in today's US Armed Forces.

Also, to RA's point it is a volunteer Army. Post Viet Nam, the US has maintained a fairly large standing Army. It is an ingenious move by the executive branch (if you are in their shoes). As long as nobody is getting drafted it is virtually impossible to get any real sustained protest going while maintaining an Armed forces large enough to commit in war.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

We discovered that painting after the war, btw, see all the "criminals and idiots" in uniform standing next to it? The comments were made by Democrats, I can assure you that we didn't go to war because of what those chuckleheads said, just pointing out how the reality has changed a bit.

I know that, you used that picture as a way of trying to justify the war.

I know we didn't go to war because of what he said. We went to war to eliminate the WMDs........to liberate the people of Iraq.......protect our oil interests.......I mean bring Democracy to the Middle East. Yeah that last one. Tough to keep up with what the reason was after it's changed half a dozen times or so.

Originally Posted by Dutch

GOTW is not just 9/11. Just like WWII wasn't just Pearl Harbor. WWI wasn't just the assassination of Ferdinand (or whatever that guys name was). There are many reasons.

And again, Iraq had little to do with global terrorism.

Originally Posted by Dutch

BTW, did you check out the links to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines?

Yes, I've seen the sites before. I don't see how that changes the fact that the military for decades set standards that they believed were beneficial and necessary.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Can they shoot good?

How do you define stupid? Even if the average IQ is lower in today's US Armed Forces versus the group in 2002, does that make people who are still of average intelligence stupid?

Also, in today's U.S.A. defining criminal can be a point of perception depending upon what laws you break.

Bottom line, there is nothing wrong with the soldiers in today's US Armed Forces.

I'm not defining anything. The U.S. military did for decades though. They are the ones that felt that if you fell below a certain intelligence level you did not meet their requirements. They are the ones that felt that being a violent criminal was something that disqualified you. The military is the ones that called them stupid and immoral for decades. Your issue would be with them.

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Also, to RA's point it is a volunteer Army. Post Viet Nam, the US has maintained a fairly large standing Army. It is an ingenious move by the executive branch (if you are in their shoes). As long as nobody is getting drafted it is virtually impossible to get any real sustained protest going while maintaining an Armed forces large enough to commit in war.

It's an old trick though. When you're sending the poor kids to war, no one cares. The public perception of Vietnam didn't hit the breaking point till rich white suburban kids started being brought home in coffins.

[Cringer]

Far from everyone in the military comes from a poor background, just the ones people like to focus on. And they, uh, still volunteer. Maybe the military should rule out poor people though, we don't want to give them any chances to improve themselves. We need to keep them down.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Just wanted to post this addendum to my response regarding Flasch's false premise that I'm an Obama opponent on all policies. FOXNews put up this article about the shifts in social policy. I'm in agreement with Obama on every one of these shifts, though I know many partisan Republican supporters are not.

First 100 Days: Social Policy Takes a Left Turn Under Obama - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

-- Obama overturned George W. Bush's restriction on embryonic stem cell research last month when he signed an executive order authorizing expanded federal funding -- a decision he described as moral because it pursues research that will "ease human suffering."

-- Obama has proposed reversing additions to the "conscience clause" enacted by the Bush administration that allow physicians and other health care providers to refuse to provide medical services that conflict with their faith or conscience.

-- On Feb. 25, Attorney General Eric Holder said the Obama administration will reinstate the federal ban on assault weapons and impose additional restrictions.

-- And although Obama has said he opposes gay marriage, he has made clear that he supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples.

I also hope he fully revokes the ban on travel to Cuba. The best way to get a non-dictatorial form of government in that country is to get Americans on the ground there to slowly convert the culture of that country.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I know that, you used that picture as a way of trying to justify the war.

I know we didn't go to war because of what he said. We went to war to eliminate the WMDs........to liberate the people of Iraq.......protect our oil interests.......I mean bring Democracy to the Middle East. Yeah that last one. Tough to keep up with what the reason was after it's changed half a dozen times or so.

Protecting oil, as unpopular as it is, is extremely important to our economy....and the world economy. I don't hide that as a neccessity and when President Bush said we were "addicted to oil" he isn't hiding it either.

And again, Iraq had little to do with global terrorism.

Pearl Harbor had little to do with 80 million dead, Ferdinand's death had little to do with Germany, Russia, England, France, and America. These were powderkegs. We stopped Iraq from being a powderkeg. But you make an intersting remark here. Define "Global Terrorism". I suspect your definition is 9/11, pure and simple. Mine is terrorism designed to attack the world balance. Iraq picking a fight with Israel through the proxy of terrorism is global, simply becaue of the ramifications. Iraq trying to build nuclear weapons is a global problem because of Iraq's many ties to terrorist organizations and it's formerly uncontrolled borders. Iraq developed into a major player on the world stage and a key rouge state along with Afghanistan's Taliban govt, North Korea, and Iran.

Yes, I've seen the sites before. I don't see how that changes the fact that the military for decades set standards that they believed were beneficial and necessary.

I'm pointing them out because a lot of the work that you said you were unaware of (and these sights can provide you insight into areas that you seemed unaware of previously), is being done by men and women who very well may have entered in on the lower standards that you claimed one "the saddest parts" of us doing something about global terrorism.

[gstelmack]

So it turns out the Obama administration is insensitive, too:

NYC financial workers see low-flying planes, panic :: WRAL.com

How could they be so insensitive! This is ridiculous! Burn the witch!

(Sorry, can't keep the outrage up. It was a stupid thing to do, but I just can't muster the real outrage my Republican leanings are trying to push out...)

[Flasch186]

it was pretty numbskulled but in the grand scheme of things pretty minute.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Protecting oil, as unpopular as it is, is extremely important to our economy....and the world economy. I don't hide that as a neccessity and when President Bush said we were "addicted to oil" he isn't hiding it either.

Pearl Harbor had little to do with 80 million dead, Ferdinand's death had little to do with Germany, Russia, England, France, and America. These were powderkegs. We stopped Iraq from being a powderkeg. But you make an intersting remark here. Define "Global Terrorism". I suspect your definition is 9/11, pure and simple. Mine is terrorism designed to attack the world balance. Iraq picking a fight with Israel through the proxy of terrorism is global, simply becaue of the ramifications. Iraq trying to build nuclear weapons is a global problem because of Iraq's many ties to terrorist organizations and it's formerly uncontrolled borders. Iraq developed into a major player on the world stage and a key rouge state along with Afghanistan's Taliban govt, North Korea, and Iran.

I'm pointing them out because a lot of the work that you said you were unaware of (and these sights can provide you insight into areas that you seemed unaware of previously), is being done by men and women who very well may have entered in on the lower standards that you claimed one "the saddest parts" of us doing something about global terrorism.

We have much different views on what is worth sacrificing American soldiers and innocent lives over. Personally saving 20 cents a gallon on gas is not one of them in my book.

We each have different opinions on what justifies military action. I guess my whole point was that it was odd that the people who strongly supported the war weren't on the front lines fighting it.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Personally saving 20 cents a gallon on gas is not one of them in my book.

That is a pretty narrow view of the world economy's dependence on oil...

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Was the true rationale just to be sadistic? I don't buy it.

Given that the "torture memos" were written by associates of Cheney and Rumsfeld and were, in general, people with little military or Intelligence/interrogation experience, it seems to me the most likely conclusion is that the true rationale was some misguided "24-style" belief in torture yielding good actionable intel. Where they went too far was in ramming this policy down the throat of intelligence services to the eventual detriment of a) morale b) America's standing in the world and c) the collection of quality actionable intel.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

And anyone who considers Iraq a 'bullshit war' has little connection with reality.

For the record, the invasion of Iraq was a bullshit war.

Originally Posted by Dutch

This is a basic fundamental difference in ideology. What the US has done with the GWOT has saved us all the trouble of fighting a "neccessary" war that even liberals could get behind.

Were it not for the invasion of Iraq, we likely wouldn't be in Afghanistan today, fighting a resurgent Taliban that has also developed the strength to challenge Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country that has already traded in nuclear secrets on the black market.

And that's only one of the many reasons why the Bush Administration's appalling counter-terror "strategy" has made us more at risk, not less.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

That is a pretty narrow view of the world economy's dependence on oil...

If we invested the 3 trillion we'll put into Iraq into alternative energy and fuels, would we really be that dependent on oil anymore?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We have much different views on what is worth sacrificing American soldiers and innocent lives over. Personally saving 20 cents a gallon on gas is not one of them in my book.

We each have different opinions on what justifies military action. I guess my whole point was that it was odd that the people who strongly supported the war weren't on the front lines fighting it.

1. 20 cent increase isn't anywhere close to what could occur.

2. Your continued argument that people who supported the war weren't on the front lines doesn't have any basis in reality.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

2. Your continued argument that people who supported the war weren't on the front lines doesn't have any basis in reality.

People who send other people's kids off to war to die for their cause while they sit on a computer at home are cowards. You believe in a cause enough that you feel it's worth giving up life for, be a man and give up yours for it.

[Flasch186]

"reality" i do not think that word means what you think it means.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

People who send other people's kids off to war to die for their cause while they sit on a computer at home are cowards. You believe in a cause enough that you feel it's worth giving up life for, be a man and give up yours for it.

I typically try to stay away from these threads, but I happened to click on this one.


Are you serious? You think every person that supports a "cause enough that you feel it's worth giving up life for" should put themselves in that role? Every person that supported the Iraq War should be in Iraq? Every person that supports law enforcement should be a cop? Everyone that supports Oil should be on an oil rig?

Really? Think about what you're saying for a second. I realize your intention, but the fact is that you just can't/won't/shouldn't have everyone in support of a war on the front lines.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If we invested the 3 trillion we'll put into Iraq into alternative energy and fuels, would we really be that dependent on oil anymore?

You really think it's that simple?

Though I hope you're right, because that would certainly mean we'll be off oil in Obama's first term.