Stop the madness!

[majorpat]

Sorry, for this post, but the truth is that I have few face to face outlets to throw down and I alway find the posts of the forumites to have a calming effect on me. By the way, I rode an exercise bike at a hotel yesterday....ho hum

But here's my beef, you may know I served in the invasion of Iraq, let's not get into all the aspects of this now. However, I am finally fed up with the "Bush and the general's are balloonheads but, doggone it, I support the troops" position adopted by just about everyone. Look, I have big problems with the whole misadventure, but it just chaps my a$$ when people adopt this position. To wit, a quote from Speaker Pelosi:
"This is a failure. This is a failure. The troops have succeeded, God bless them. We owe them the greatest debt of gratitude for their sacrifice, their patriotism, and for their courage and to their families as well."
She may be sincere but which troops does she want God to Bless? Just the privates and lance corporals? Are sergeants OK to support? What about me, I was a company commander with, one assumes, a larger understanding of the mission?
I guess my point is that after five years of this, the "I support the troops but think the mission is a failure" folks are basically saying, "we can't blame the troops (are the general's and colonel's troops?) they are just mindless automatons who really must follow orders all the time." It's condescending and is getting old. Hey I am just as supportive of folks who get deployed, many are my friends and former Marines, maybe it's just when the position is taken by public type folks to defend their position. Many may find it shocking, but much of the war is planned, adjusted, reevaluated and carried out without White House input on the best employment of a machine gun at at map grid 123456. My guess is that most troops on the ground would rather that politicians just said nothing rather than, "hey, I think you poor, misguided creatures are just peaches, too bad you just can't sit around baking cupcakes al day!"
It's warfare, folks.
For myself, I support the good folks in elected office, It's just the dam government that so screwed up.....

Sorry for the rant...I did buy a 1" Nitto stem this week!!!

[dirtdigger88]

+1 and thank you

Jason

[Blue Jays]

Same as dirtdigger88, thank you for your generous and selfless service to our great country!

[J.Greene]

As the other two said...thanks

wrt to your point, you are an extension of the political machine. It's always been that way. Keep your head up and know that most of us are thankful we have people like you.

JG

[Len J]

I can't speak for Pelosi....but I can speak for me.

Give our fighting men and women a mission that they have been trained for, armed for, manned for & with proper rules of engagement & nothing can withstand the onslaught. I'll point to the Invasion of Iraq and quick defeat of the Iragi military as an example as is the initial several months in Afganistan.

OTOH, underman them, give them a nebulous mission that they have not been trained for, give them Rules of engagement that handcuff them & you are using them as both fodder and for purely political reasons. I'd point to the original counterinsurgence efforts and efforts to quell thousands of years of ethnic hate while undermanned & the attempt to stabilize Afganistan while removing more & more troops as examples of this.

In both cases they are the same fighting men & women......In both cases they deserve our respect and gratitude.........However in the latter example, criticizing the leadership that uses our precious troops so causally is not only appropriate, IMO, it's essential.....for anyone that actually cares about the Men & women actually being put at risk.

BTW...thanks much for your service.

Len

[ti_boi]

Sorry, for this post, but the truth is that I have few face to face outlets to throw down and I alway find the posts of the forumites to have a calming effect on me. By the way, I rode an exercise bike at a hotel yesterday....ho hum

But here's my beef, you may know I served in the invasion of Iraq, let's not get into all the aspects of this now. However, I am finally fed up with the "Bush and the general's are balloonheads but, doggone it, I support the troops" position adopted by just about everyone. Look, I have big problems with the whole misadventure, but it just chaps my a$$ when people adopt this position. To wit, a quote from Speaker Pelosi:
"This is a failure. This is a failure. The troops have succeeded, God bless them. We owe them the greatest debt of gratitude for their sacrifice, their patriotism, and for their courage and to their families as well."
She may be sincere but which troops does she want God to Bless? Just the privates and lance corporals? Are sergeants OK to support? What about me, I was a company commander with, one assumes, a larger understanding of the mission?
I guess my point is that after five years of this, the "I support the troops but think the mission is a failure" folks are basically saying, "we can't blame the troops (are the general's and colonel's troops?) they are just mindless automatons who really must follow orders all the time." It's condescending and is getting old. Hey I am just as supportive of folks who get deployed, many are my friends and former Marines, maybe it's just when the position is taken by public type folks to defend their position. Many may find it shocking, but much of the war is planned, adjusted, reevaluated and carried out without White House input on the best employment of a machine gun at at map grid 123456. My guess is that most troops on the ground would rather that politicians just said nothing rather than, "hey, I think you poor, misguided creatures are just peaches, too bad you just can't sit around baking cupcakes al day!"
It's warfare, folks.
For myself, I support the good folks in elected office, It's just the dam government that so screwed up.....

Sorry for the rant...I did buy a 1" Nitto stem this week!!!


I think you make excellent points here. I don't know anyone who really thinks much of the politicians in Washington right now. The polls that measure 'approval' are at about 22% for Congress and 30% for GW...those numbers tell me that people think the whole group are simply out of touch with reality. They are self-serving opportunists some of whom might have good intentions but we know the old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

You've done what few people could do and your service is key to the security of the country. Our lives are better because of what you do.

[michael white]

Nitto stems don't quite make up for the lack of spine in Washington, but they do help some. I have one still in the bag . . .

[rnhood]

Unfortunately Congress appears to be comprised of mostly former prosecutors, who love investigations but can't do much else. No wonder their approval rating is so low. They don't seem nearly as interested in our national security as they are in whether or not the NFL destroyed evidence that might indicate the Patriots coach spied on other NFL teams.

[Chris]

I agree with Len. I think the important thing, which America has learned from Vietnam, is that the military itself is not responsible for how it is used. If the big boss says go, it goes. That's why millions of us, can whole-heartedly support our troops by praying for them, wishing them well, and being proud of their attempts to accomplish the mission they have been tasked with, all the while being completely baffled as to why the administration would have tasked them with that mission in the first place.

[97CSI]

As someone who spent over eight years on active duty, including Vietnam, I too 'support the troops', but think the mission was more than flawed from the start. And our current leader is spineless (we are the same age - what did he do during Vietnam? Got his teeth fixed.). As bad as congress is, it was worse over the majority of the past sixteen years and seems to be slowly lifting itself out of the morass it has created for this country with dubya/Bill at the helm. But I won't hold my breathe. Depends on the super-delegates, who are mostly just old-line pols, themselves.

[hansolo758]

Sorry, for this post, but the truth is that I have few face to face outlets to throw down and I alway find the posts of the forumites to have a calming effect on me. By the way, I rode an exercise bike at a hotel yesterday....ho hum

But here's my beef, you may know I served in the invasion of Iraq, let's not get into all the aspects of this now. However, I am finally fed up with the "Bush and the general's are balloonheads but, doggone it, I support the troops" position adopted by just about everyone. Look, I have big problems with the whole misadventure, but it just chaps my a$$ when people adopt this position. To wit, a quote from Speaker Pelosi:
"This is a failure. This is a failure. The troops have succeeded, God bless them. We owe them the greatest debt of gratitude for their sacrifice, their patriotism, and for their courage and to their families as well."
She may be sincere but which troops does she want God to Bless? Just the privates and lance corporals? Are sergeants OK to support? What about me, I was a company commander with, one assumes, a larger understanding of the mission?
I guess my point is that after five years of this, the "I support the troops but think the mission is a failure" folks are basically saying, "we can't blame the troops (are the general's and colonel's troops?) they are just mindless automatons who really must follow orders all the time." It's condescending and is getting old. Hey I am just as supportive of folks who get deployed, many are my friends and former Marines, maybe it's just when the position is taken by public type folks to defend their position. Many may find it shocking, but much of the war is planned, adjusted, reevaluated and carried out without White House input on the best employment of a machine gun at at map grid 123456. My guess is that most troops on the ground would rather that politicians just said nothing rather than, "hey, I think you poor, misguided creatures are just peaches, too bad you just can't sit around baking cupcakes al day!"
It's warfare, folks.
For myself, I support the good folks in elected office, It's just the dam government that so screwed up.....

Sorry for the rant...I did buy a 1" Nitto stem this week!!!

Perhaps supporting the troops but not the leadership is a cop-out. However, what other course of action do the sizable number of people have who oppose the war, yet who admire the sense of duty in the soldiers who go to Iraq -- my nephew and the children of several people with whom I work being among them? We see first hand what service to one's country and sacrifice really mean. And this includes the officers and NCOs. When General Petraeus came to Capitol Hill a few months ago to explain the results of the "surge", he came across as a thoroughly decent man and a competent soldier. I was as appalled as anyone that Moveon.org would call him a traitor. He is a professional soldier doing what his civilian leadership instructed him to do as well as he can, without blaming his superiors or letting his personal opinions enter into the argument. That is true professionalism.

Yet even amongst those who serve, there is a sense that this war, while it may have had clearly defined objectives at one point, no longer does. And we didn't go in with overwhelming force (in opposition to the Powell doctrine). If those who serve feel that way, where does this leave the rest of us? Yes, we want our troops to have armored Humvees and whatever else they need to do the best they can and to survive. They are not "baby-killers", as those who came back from Vietnam were called. But we also want them to come home and not stay a moment longer than is necessary. The troops cannot say this because that would be mutiny. But those civilians who oppose the war certainly can do their best to influence the civilian leadership on how the war is conducted. That's democracy. That's what sustains my nephew.

And, thank you for your service. You are one of the troops we support.

[Ray]

MajorPat,

I can understand your feeling patronized and patted on the head by the language you cite. But, as others have said, some of the reason those opposing the policy behind the war use language like this is because those who support it so often accuse any dissenters of being unpatriotic and undermining the troops in the field by our objections to the policy.

I personally think the war in Iraq (as distinct from Afghanistan, which I do support and think we should be much more engaged in) was a horrible policy mistake. I don't think we should be in Iraq. I can't say it any more clearly and I'm not going to apologize for that. But we ARE there. I don't believe it is at all unpatriotic to question the mission. But since we are stuck in Iraq for some period of time, I do think the troops should be given the best equipment and best leadership we can find and should be encouraged to do their job as well as they can - and they DO a great job given the problems with the job they've been given to do. I also think Patreus is the best man for the job, even if I don't think we should have taken on that particular job.

The shorthand for this position is "I support the troops who are stuck fighting this misguided war, but I don't support the policy that put them there in the first place". I'm sorry you find that contradictory and condescending. I don't find it to be either and damn sure don't intend it to be either. I don't have a better way to say it. If you have any suggestions for less offensive language, I'm very open to hearing them and using different language in the future.

And, by the way, I FULLY appreciate the service of those of you who have fought and are still fighting over there. You may or may not believe me, but I'm very sincere about that. I also don't for a minute think that the troops are bobble-headed idiots (well, I'm sure a few probably are, just like with any other population). You follow orders because you HAVE TO follow orders - that's the only way a military unit can function. That's part of doing your job well and you DO do your job well. Again, there's no condescension in that at all.

-Ray

[GregL]

Majorpat, I agree with your assessment. I think the "support the troops" mentality is based on a kind of "national guilt" over the treatment of Vietnam-era military personnel. The pendulum has swung completely to the other side, where many feel they have to display this "false patriotism." I for one think it is hypocritical and don't partake in it. I was in O'Hare airport a few months back when some soldiers disembarked from a commercial flight. Nearly everyone in the gate area stood and cheered for them. I thought it was funny. No one knew if the soldiers had just returned from Iraq or Las Vegas, but they cheered nonetheless...

[J.Greene]

I don't think it is false patriotism. Infact, that is an offensive thing to say. Those of us who know people who are on their 3rd and 4th combat tours support the troops by default. We support the families they leave behind in so many ways beyond bumper sticker patriotism. But we don't have to support the overall poltics of the mission. Your quote is illogical and misinformed atmo.

JG


Majorpat, I agree with your assessment. I think the "support the troops" mentality is based on a kind of "national guilt" over the treatment of Vietnam-era military personnel. The pendulum has swung completely to the other side, where many feel they have to display this "false patriotism." I for one think it is hypocritical and don't partake in it. I was in O'Hare airport a few months back when some soldiers disembarked from a commercial flight. Nearly everyone in the gate area stood and cheered for them. I thought it was funny. No one knew if the soldiers had just returned from Iraq or Las Vegas, but they cheered nonetheless...

[GregL]

I don't think it is false patriotism. Infact, that is an offensive thing to say. Those of us who know people who are on their 3rd and 4th combat tours support the troops by default. We support the families they leave behind in so many ways beyond bumper sticker patriotism. But we don't have to support the overall poltics of the mission. Your quote is illogical and misinformed atmo.

It's called an opinion. Perhaps you have heard of them? :) In my opinion, some people are almost afraid to NOT make overt shows of support for the troops. I have been told by several friends and family members in the military that they, like the original poster, do not like the "support the troops regardless" mentality. I support the people who are performing sometimes difficult jobs for their country. I do not feel that I have to make grand displays of this support, which can be construed as condescending. I do not support the government who made the mistake of sending them into Iraq.

BTW, two of my cousins have had multiple tours in Iraq.

[MarleyMon]

"I support the troops but think the mission is a failure" =
"I love mankind, its people I can't stand." Linus (via Charles Schultz)

I don't think this war is a just war and don't support participation at any level.
I'm glad majorpat made it back alive and hope his troops did also.

[Viper]

MajorPat,

You are a hero. Nancy Pelosi? Seriously folks, watch an interview of her; Nancy Pelosi is one of the most simple-minded, dim wits in all of politics. Whichever side one is on politicially, they'd have to agree that she is surprisingly dumb. I know President Bush has his moments, but she is way over her head. I was shocked when I began to follow/listen to her, to find out what was behind the curtain, she is an intellectual smurf.

Iraq = We went there for Israel's safety imho
Iraq = It was a success in that we defeated the Hussein regime
Iraq = The day Saddam was captured it was the completion of our military's role imho
Iraq = After the day Saddam was captured, became the days for the struggle of peace, not so much the job of our military.
Iraq = Anyone who says, "I don't support the mission, but I support the troops" or anything close to this...it's just mumbo jumbo on their part and it's very, very weak.
Iraq = the main reason why Barack Obama might win in November.
Iraq = People, the American people don't understand that War, really any War, will take years and years of involvement. Americans wanted it done in 90 days. :rolleyes:
Iraq = A shining example of why America should remove the fingers of Israel from our nose as the pull us around; America should not attack Iran as Israel begs us to do so.
Iraq = We didn't go there for oil as some simpletons believe.
Iraq = The results should teach us, we should change our foreign policy of the Middle East. President Bush has started the ball rolling by standing in Palestine and offering, "Israel must move back to pre-1967 borders."

If you wear a green uniform or any uniform with the American flag on it, you are a hero atmo.

[fiamme red]

Iraq = We went there for Israel's safety imhoHave any evidence for your opinion?

[Ahneida Ride]

Eliminate the system that creates $$ outa thin air to fund wars,
and you eliminate useless wars.

[Ahneida Ride]

Sorry for the duplicate post :crap:

[Ray]

Sorry for the duplicate post :crap:
That's a joke, right :beer:

Just kiddin' you Ray - that was just waaaay too easy a target....

-Ray

[Viper]

Have any evidence for your opinion?

Some pretty dumb cats from Harvard/Chicago University, here's a tiny piece of their broad case atmo:

"As discussed below, Washington has given Israel wide latitude in dealing with the occupied territories (the West Bank and Gaza Strip), even when its actions were at odds with stated U.S. policy. Moreover, the Bush Administration’s ambitious strategy to transform the Middle East – beginning with the invasion of Iraq – is at least partly intended to improve Israel’s strategic situation. Apart from wartime alliances, it is hard to think of another instance where one country has provided another with a similar level of material and diplomatic support for such an extended period. America’s support for Israel is, in short, unique."

-John J. Mearsheimer
Department of Political Science
Chicago University

Stephen M. Walt
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:21BA-Hj4PBoJ:www.antiwar.com/orig/mearwalt.php%3Farticleid%3D9573+The+Israel+Lobby+a nd+US+Foreign+Policy+by+Professor+John+Mearsheimer +Iraq&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNQv5YSg_YA

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5537557

http://mitworld.mit.edu/stream/486/

Also, Wesley Clarke offered months before the invasion, retired four-star US Army General and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark acknowledged in an interview: “Those who favor this attack [by the US against Iraq] now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel."

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:Kbi4DLPrYUgJ:www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml+bush+saddam+is+a+threat+to+israel&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Six months before the attack, President Bush met in the White House with eleven members of the US House of Representatives. While the “war against terrorism is going okay,” he told the lawmakers, the United States would soon have to deal with a greater danger: “The biggest threat, however, is Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. He can blow up Israel and that would trigger an international conflict.”

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:Kbi4DLPrYUgJ:www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml+bush+saddam+is+a+threat+to+israel&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Bush also spoke candidly about why the US was going to war during a White House meeting on Feb. 27, 2003, just three weeks before the invasion. In a talk with Elie Wiesel, the well-known Jewish writer, Bush said: “If we don’t disarm Saddam Hussein, he will put a weapon of mass destruction on Israel and they will do what they think they have to do, and we have to avoid that.”

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:Kbi4DLPrYUgJ:www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml+bush+saddam+is+a+threat+to+israel&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

The Jerusalem correspondent for the Guardian, the respected British daily, reported in August 2002: “Israel signalled its decision yesterday to put public pressure on President George Bush to go ahead with a military attack on Iraq, even though it believes Saddam Hussein may well retaliate by striking Israel.”

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:Kbi4DLPrYUgJ:www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml+bush+saddam+is+a+threat+to+israel&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Three months before the US invasion, the well-informed Washington journalist Robert Novak reported that Israeli prime minister Sharon was telling American political leaders that “the greatest US assistance to Israel would be to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime.” Moreover, added Novak, “that view is widely shared inside the Bush administration, and is a major reason why US forces today are assembling for war.”

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:Kbi4DLPrYUgJ:www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml+bush+saddam+is+a+threat+to+israel&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Israel’s spy agencies were a “full partner” with the US and Britain in producing greatly exaggerated prewar assessments of Iraq’s ability to wage war, a former senior Israeli military intelligence official has acknowledged. Shlomo Bron, a brigadier general in the Israel army reserves, and a senior researcher at a major Israeli think tank, said that intelligence provided by Israel played a significant role in supporting the US and British case for making war. Israeli intelligence agencies, he said, “badly overestimated the Iraqi threat to Israel and reinforced the American and British belief that the weapons [of mass destruction] existed.”

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:Kbi4DLPrYUgJ:www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml+bush+saddam+is+a+threat+to+israel&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

The role of the pro-Israel lobby in pressing for war is examined in an 81-page research paper by two prominent American scholars, John J. Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen M. Walt, professor of international affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. [15]

In the paper, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” they write:

“Pressure from Israel and the [pro-Israel] Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure… Within the United States, the main driving force behind the Iraq war was a small band of neoconservatives, many with close ties to Israel’s Likud Party. In addition, key leaders of the Lobby’s major organizations lent their voices to the campaign for war.”

Important members of the pro-Israel lobby carried out what professors Mearshiemer and Walt call “an unrelenting public relations campaign to win support for invading Iraq. A key part of this campaign was the manipulation of intelligence information, so as to make Saddam look like an imminent threat.”

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:Kbi4DLPrYUgJ:www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml+bush+saddam+is+a+threat+to+israel&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Uri Avnery – an award-winning Israeli journalist and author, and a three-time member of Israel’s parliament – sees the Iraq war as an expression of immense Jewish influence and power. In an essay written some weeks after the US invasion, he wrote:

"Who are the winners? They are the so-called neo-cons, or neo-conservatives. A compact group, almost all of whose members are Jewish. They hold the key positions in the Bush administration, as well as in the think-tanks that play an important role in formulating American policy and the ed-op pages of the influential news*papers... The immense influence of this largely Jewish group stems from its close alliance with the extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalists, who nowadays control Bush's Republican party. ... Seemingly, all this is good for Israel. America controls the world, we control America. Never before have Jews exerted such an immense influence on the center of world power.”

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:Kbi4DLPrYUgJ:www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml+bush+saddam+is+a+threat+to+israel&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

[ti_boi]

Our Father in Heaven, Rock and Redeemer of the people Israel; Bless the State of Israel, with its promise of redemption. Shield it with Your love; spread over it the shelter of Your peace. Guide its leaders and advisors with Your light and Your truth. Help them with Your good counsel. Strengthen the hands of those who defend our Holy Land. Deliver them; crown their efforts with triumph. Bless the land with peace, and its inhabitants with lasting joy. And let us say: Amen.

[Viper]

Our Father in Heaven, Rock and Redeemer of the people Israel; Bless the State of Israel, with its promise of redemption. Shield it with Your love; spread over it the shelter of Your peace. Guide its leaders and advisors with Your light and Your truth. Help them with Your good counsel. Strengthen the hands of those who defend our Holy Land. Deliver them; crown their efforts with triumph. Bless the land with peace, and its inhabitants with lasting joy. And let us say: Amen.

"Our Father in Heaven, Rock and Redeemer of the people Ireland; Bless the State of Ireland, with its promise of redemption. Shield it with Your love; spread over it the shelter of Your peace. Guide its leaders and advisors with Your light and Your truth. Help them with Your good counsel. Strengthen the hands of those who defend our Holy Land. Deliver them; crown their efforts with triumph. Bless the land with peace, and its inhabitants with lasting joy. And let us say: Amen"

I'm 100% Irish ti boi, but I'd even take off my green sunglasses to look at Ireland honestly, if they had America going to war with Scotland over water. :D

Problem is, American-Jews are often Zions, bound by a religious code to defend and support Israel and when these American citizens become political leaders, whose interest are they most concerned with, America or Israel?

The good news is, folks like Noam Chomsky, the Harvard Paper and current events (Americans are now sick of the Iraq War) have enabled many Americans to scratch their heads and say, "***?" No Ti boi, we ain't going after Iran, even as AIPAC continues to beg and plead atmo.

President Carter wrote a great book about Israel, of course he was called an anti-semite for it. :rolleyes: Poor Archbishop Tutu was called the same by Israel. If you do not agree with Israel 110%, expect to be called some pretty rotten names atmo.

[JohnS]

Why does anyone think that Joe Lieberman was such a staunch proponent of the war...just askin'?

[jeffg]

Eliminate the system that creates $$ outa thin air to fund wars,
and you eliminate useless wars.

Really?

There were never any useless wars prior to the abandonment of the gold standard in the late 20th century?

Don't become an FRN-fetischist, yo ...

[J.Greene]

Really?

There were never any useless wars prior to the abandonment of the gold standard in the late 20th century?

Don't become an FRN-fetischist, yo ...

If we couldn't print dollars we'd need to go to war to get them atmo...

JG

[ti_boi]

[QUOTE=Viper]
I'm 100% Irish ti boi, but I'd even take off my green sunglasses to look at Ireland honestly, if they had America going to war with Scotland over water. :D [QUOTE]

Non sequitur

[Viper]

[QUOTE=Viper]
I'm 100% Irish ti boi, but I'd even take off my green sunglasses to look at Ireland honestly, if they had America going to war with Scotland over water. :D [QUOTE]

Non sequitur

It was a decent episode atmo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSMmaqD3ggU

[djg]

"Problem is, American-Jews are often Zions, bound by a religious code to defend and support Israel and when these American citizens become political leaders, whose interest are they most concerned with, America or Israel?"


Now there's a surprise ... who among us could have guessed that Viper would have used a heartfelt complaint about one aspect of the politics of how folks discuss Iraq to launch into yet another string of posts about ... Viper, and his moronic and bigoted twist on the role of the Jews in world politics. Could it be that my little personal attack here will be followed by multiple responses by said Viper, containing many little demonstrations of one's cut-and-paste abilities, and not a few bits of self-congratulation having to do with the snake's cleverness and insight? Enquiring minds ...

Have at it. I'm entirely out of here myself -- I'm not interested in an argument, just moved again to say that I find this rubbish disturbing.

[Viper]

"Problem is, American-Jews are often Zions, bound by a religious code to defend and support Israel and when these American citizens become political leaders, whose interest are they most concerned with, America or Israel?"


Now there's a surprise ... who among us could have guessed that Viper would have used a heartfelt complaint about one aspect of the politics of how folks discuss Iraq to launch into yet another string of posts about ... Viper, and his moronic and bigoted twist on the role of the Jews in world politics. Could it be that my little personal attack here will be followed by multiple responses by said Viper, containing many little demonstrations of one's cut-and-paste abilities, and not a few bits of self-congratulation having to do with the snake's cleverness and insight? Enquiring minds ...

Have at it. I'm entirely out of here myself -- I'm not interested in an argument, just moved again to say that I find this rubbish disturbing.


How you handle yourself in debate says so much about you.

Guess you didn't vote for Ron Paul? He had a few smart ideas.

Did I ever call you a moron, a bigot or a snake? You've done so, above. I attack America's foreign policy...and you attack me...brilliant! I'm Viper btw cause I was the best pilot in Top Gun, Maverick and Goose knew this to be true, so there goes your 'snake' hyperbole. What's most disturbing is your post and it's venom (snake reference which fitsmo).

Are the two professors from Harvard bigots?
Is Archbishop Desmond Tutu?
Scott Ritter?
Noam Chomsky?
Wesley Clarke?
Patrick Buchanan?
President Carter?
Are you? (he who smelt it dealt it atmo).

[ti_boi]

I'm gonna figure that Ol Viper and his ready bag of cut and paste(s) regarding Israel has an axe to grind. My thought is that if you appreciate Israel, great. I do. I see a good reason for it's existence and that of course has a lot to do with the diaspora. If you don't like Israel, that is fine too.

[davids]

"Problem is, American-Jews are often Zions, bound by a religious code to defend and support Israel and when these American citizens become political leaders, whose interest are they most concerned with, America or Israel?"


Now there's a surprise ... who among us could have guessed that Viper would have used a heartfelt complaint about one aspect of the politics of how folks discuss Iraq to launch into yet another string of posts about ... Viper, and his moronic and bigoted twist on the role of the Jews in world politics. Could it be that my little personal attack here will be followed by multiple responses by said Viper, containing many little demonstrations of one's cut-and-paste abilities, and not a few bits of self-congratulation having to do with the snake's cleverness and insight? Enquiring minds ...

Have at it. I'm entirely out of here myself -- I'm not interested in an argument, just moved again to say that I find this rubbish disturbing.Amazing.

Even with Viper as the sole inhabitant of my "ignore" list, I get sprayed with his glib idiocy and bigotry. I'm really trying not to let his mush-headed antisemitism get to me. But it's so hard to not respond...

Remember when JFK was tarred with a similar brush, when anti-Catholics implied he'd be taking his marching orders from the Vatican? Viper's replaced that slander with the older canard against the Jews.

I don't even want to know what else he's posted that's remained blocked from my aching eyes. Moderators, Viper's statement is antisemitic. Please do something about this.

[JohnS]

Moderators, Viper's statement is antisemitic..
I took it as being neutral. He didn't say "all", he said "often". Just because you aren't "pro", doesn't mean you are "anti".

[davids]

I took it as being neutral. He didn't say "all", he said "often". Just because you aren't "pro", doesn't mean you are "anti".Read this:

Problem is, American-Catholics are often faithful, bound by a religious code to defend and support the Church and when these American citizens become political leaders, whose interest are they most concerned with, America or the Catholic Church's?
Do you really think that the word 'often' makes this statement Catholic "neutral"?

Personally, my issue is not with the word 'often'. The statement says that American Jews' loyalties are open to question, because of who they are. It is classic antisemitism.

[JohnS]

Davids, you misquoted. He says nothing about religion. He's talking about Israel. Many Americans think of Israel like they do Canada, that it's not really a foreign country. Sorry, but they are, with their own foreign policy that doesn't always agree with our own.

[Pete Serotta]

not bike related....


Has nothing to do with my personal views for I support the military and have been there (USMC-Vietnam) Yeah the last century