Political Motivation

[Spartan198]

Why is it that everyone assumes everything pro-Bush / pro-war is lies without any proof beyond what some nutjob says on a You Tube video or something,but everything anti-Bush / anti-war is always truth even if it ends up proven to be a lie?
I mean,take the Dragon Skin body armor debate,as a prime example. The US Army already proved that it's inferior to Interceptor vests,yet the general public,most of whom know very little about these things,constantly cries "Dragon Skin is better,buy it". They seem to ignore the fact that the stuff was fraudulently advertised as being certified to a ballistic level it had not yet been.
Same can be said about the now-defunct XM8 weapon program. Army tests did,indeed,prove that it's better than the M4,but only a little better,which provides virtually ZERO incentive to replace every single M16 and M4 in the US arsenal,yet the general public continues to cry "XM8 is better,buy it".

Now I will admit I don't know everything about this kind of thing,but I do know more than the average civilian,so I do,in fact,know enough to comment.

And,you know,if Bush was so bad,why was he again voted into office a second term,then? That alone proves that Bush supporters are the majority of the US population.

Opinions?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

And,you know,if Bush was so bad,why was he again voted into office a second term,then? That alone proves that Bush supporters are the majority of the US population.

You get bad, or you get worse. That's the disadvantage of a two-party system.

[Marshal Murat]

With a multiple-party system...well...see Victonia Election sub-forum.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

With a multiple-party system...well...see Victonia Election sub-forum.

I would argue that a multi-party system is still far better than a two party system.

[seireikhaan]

People didn't like Bush much in '04. They liked John Kerry even less. Boils down to that, pretty much. Pretty damn sad, really.

[Lemur]

FWIW, Spartan, this is the first place I've ever heard of the Dragon Skin Armor, whatever that is. And I'm a bit of a news junkie, so it can't be very prominent in the media. And I haven't read any editorials or opinion pieces anywhere suggesting that we must equip our army with the XM8. So ... where are you finding these articles? Where are you hearing this stuff?

As for criticism of Bush, from what I've seen, the President has a cadre of very effective, very loyal defenders. That 28% isn't letting anything get by. When a criticism is baseless, or when it can be countered, it happens. The conservative machine is effective and alert.

So I'm not quite clear on where you assertion that all criticism of Bush is accepted as true without thought is coming from either ...

[Pannonian]

The Iraq war is stupid. Rebut that. Never mind about lies and counterlies - they're irrelevant. If the Iraq war is a good idea, then that justifies lies and deception. Just show that the Iraq war is a good idea, and you'll win the argument.

[CrossLOPER]

Why is it that everyone assumes everything pro-Bush / pro-war is lies without any proof beyond what some nutjob says on a You Tube video or something,but everything anti-Bush / anti-war is always truth even if it ends up proven to be a lie?

Youtube.com is not an accurate representation of the general public.

I mean,take the Dragon Skin body armor debate,as a prime example. The US Army already proved that it's inferior to Interceptor vests,yet the general public,most of whom know very little about these things,constantly cries "Dragon Skin is better,buy it". They seem to ignore the fact that the stuff was fraudulently advertised as being certified to a ballistic level it had not yet been.

I think the argument has a lot more to do with the fact that the military-issue equipment is expensive and apparently not being issued by the military. Dragon skin is probably inferior, but apparently much more affordable and flexible than Interceptor Body Armor and certainly better than sack cloth when it comes to armor. I believe the military ordered that soldiers drop Dragon Skin or risk losing benefits, which is understandable. However, it becomes a problem when you have no way of getting the armor the army wants you to have.

Same can be said about the now-defunct XM8 weapon program. Army tests did,indeed,prove that it's better than the M4,but only a little better,which provides virtually ZERO incentive to replace every single M16 and M4 in the US arsenal,yet the general public continues to cry "XM8 is better,buy it".

This gun?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It's apparently still being worked on, but I have not heard of any major public movement to push its distribution. The military has a habit of delaying mass production of guns. This happened with the current M4 as well back in the Vietnam War Era.

Now I will admit I don't know everything about this kind of thing,but I do know more than the average civilian,so I do,in fact,know enough to comment.

I find it hard to remain impartial most of the time. I would step back and take another look from a wider perspective.

And,you know,if Bush was so bad,why was he again voted into office a second term,then? That alone proves that Bush supporters are the majority of the US population.

Actually, it was about 50%, and Kerry probably knew that he lost long before the vote came in. A presidential victory in the US lies in the electoral college, not so much the people.

Also, Bush's approval rating is pretty low right now, so that says something.... I guess.

Opinions?

Well, there are "nutjobs", as you call them, but they hardly comprise the majority. The majority is unhappy, that much is true. They are unsatisfied and they want change.

Oh look, presidential elections.

EDIT: I think it's time to find a different way to cite quotes.

[Spartan198]

Youtube.com is not an accurate representation of the general public.

I was just using YouTube as a general example,one being the validity of this guy's statements:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwwMF6biCJU
This guy,a deserter,puts forward all that heinous bull just to justify his disgraceful actions,yet the majority of all those nimrods claiming he's being truthful when I see ZERO actual proof,ether in his little video or elsewhere.
Approval ratings (however important) aside,everybody seems to rally around anti-Bush / anti-war statements like they're pulled straight from the freaking book of genesis or whatever,even when there is very little if any proof at all to validate it. That's kinda the point I'm trying to make.

I think the argument has a lot more to do with the fact that the military-issue equipment is expensive and apparently not being issued by the military. Dragon skin is probably inferior, but apparently much more affordable and flexible than Interceptor Body Armor and certainly better than sack cloth when it comes to armor. I believe the military ordered that soldiers drop Dragon Skin or risk losing benefits, which is understandable. However, it becomes a problem when you have no way of getting the armor the army wants you to have.

Interceptor is actually cheaper,despite what Pinnacle Armor may say. I've got friends in all branches of the armed services except the Air Force and Coast Guard,and from what they've told me,Interceptor is issued to all frontline troops. Plus,I'm in the process of joining the Marine Corps (currently I'm trying to find out whether or not some past medical issues will be any issue whatsoever) already with a lot of relevant modern military knowledge under my belt (there's just not much of anywhere here on the .Org to discuss that). So I do have a vested interest here (no pun intended).

This gun?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It's apparently still being worked on, but I have not heard of any major public movement to push its distribution. The military has a habit of delaying mass production of guns. This happened with the current M4 as well back in the Vietnam War Era.

Yeah,that's the one. I know it's still being worked on independently by Heckler & Koch,but is it still being considered for US issue? If you know anyplace with some good info,please give me a link.
I'm all for US troops getting the best equipment available no matter the cost,but I don't agree with them being given experimental rifles or body armor just because some corporation claims they're better. If I were to go into combat tomorrow,I'd take a battle-proven M4 and Interceptor vest over a better XM8 and Dragon Skin vest without hesitation.
Just a little correction,though: It's the M16A1 you're thinking of in Vietnam. The M4 platform was adopted in '93,derived from the XM177 series carbines,which troops found effective in the field regardless of what the politicians claimed.
But you are correct. Mass-production of the M16 was delayed until the weapon had been perfected into the optimum (for the time) M16A1 form. And by the time that happened,the failures had stopped,the right powder was being used in ammunition,etc.,and the M16 series was a top-notch infantry rifle,now the longest serving in history.
Plus,a completely new weapons system seems completely redundant and a waste of taxpayer money when new H & K (M416) or Barret (M468,now called REC7) (both pictured below;416 above and 468 below) upper recievers can be bought at a fraction of the price and mated with existing M16 and M4 lowers with minimal internal changes or retraining of active troops.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

EDIT: Removed hotlinked picture. BG
(This one's from Photobucket -- Sorry about that,BG)

On top of that,the M416 itself has already been combat-proven by 1SOF-D Delta and Special Forces (Green Berets) operators.

I find it hard to remain impartial most of the time. I would step back and take another look from a wider perspective.

I personally am politically impartial. I neither like Bush nor hate him. My only partiality is with the troops.
But,again,you are correct. Most people think that either you agree with them and are their friend,or disagree and are the enemy. I can't even describe the amount of heat I get for not rallying with the anti-Bush / anti-war crowd. In this kind of environment we have in the US today,it's very difficult to remain neutral. I'll defend it to the death,but sometimes Freedom of Speech can be a real *****.

Actually, it was about 50%, and Kerry probably knew that he lost long before the vote came in. A presidential victory in the US lies in the electoral college, not so much the people.

Yeah,that's true. Conspiracy theories aside (I've never been one to pay too much attention to that crap),I wonder who really runs my country and if Hideo Kojima was right on the whole "Philosiphers / Patriots,La-Li-Lu-Le-Lo" thing featured so prominently in his MGS games.

Also, Bush's approval rating is pretty low right now, so that says something.... I guess.

Yeah,you're most likely right.

Well, there are "nutjobs", as you call them, but they hardly comprise the majority. The majority is unhappy, that much is true. They are unsatisfied and they want change.

Oh,definitely. Not everyone on the planet is signed into the .Org,TWcenter,or YouTube (which is quickly becoming an anti-America propaganda site). No disrespect to anyone's leaders in places like the UK,Russia,Canada,etc,but is there really anyone on earth with the right qualifications to run any country at all?

Oh look, presidential elections.

Well,Obama and Clinton don't exactly look to be the light at the end of the tunnel just yet.

EDIT: I think it's time to find a different way to cite quotes.

Like I said,I only used YouTube as a single example earlier. Believe me,if I took anything on YouTube seriously,would I have brought this discussion here where I can get intelligent responses from knowledgable people instead of childish,name-calling rants about how I'm "evil for not wanting to tear Bush's limbs off"?
Reminds me of a quote I read in the EB forums:

The less you listen to YouTube comments,the more human you are.

[Meneldil]

And,you know,if Bush was so bad,why was he again voted into office a second term,then? That alone proves that Bush supporters are the majority of the US population.

Opinions?

You're far from correct there.

[Spartan198]

FWIW, Spartan, this is the first place I've ever heard of the Dragon Skin Armor, whatever that is. And I'm a bit of a news junkie, so it can't be very prominent in the media. And I haven't read any editorials or opinion pieces anywhere suggesting that we must equip our army with the XM8. So ... where are you finding these articles? Where are you hearing this stuff?

Here's a good article on the XM8 and its variants that I've found to be accurate on the rifle itself,but has nothing "public-demand" related (the Wikipedia article on it is also seems accurate,too):
http://http://world.guns.ru/assault/as61-e.htm
Dragon Skin body armor is a bit harder,because every article I find seems to be biased toward either Pinnacle Armor or the US Army. If I find something neutral,I'll post a link.

Edit: But here's a picture of a Dragon Skin vest.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Spartan198]

You're far from correct there.

No offense,but please don't tell me you're one of those conspiracy theorists who think that the Rockafellar Corporation or something runs the US,that the US govenment flew planes into the WTC,and that the moon landings were fake. I'm not trying to discourage you or anything,I'm just not interested in conspiracies.
Other than that,feel free to elaborate.
I knew what I was getting into when I started this thread.

[CountArach]

Spartan, the problem you appear to be having is that you are not understanding this:

People can support the soldiers, but not the war.

Learn to seperate the two and all will be well.

[Spartan198]

The Iraq war is stupid. Rebut that. Never mind about lies and counterlies - they're irrelevant. If the Iraq war is a good idea, then that justifies lies and deception. Just show that the Iraq war is a good idea, and you'll win the argument.

That's not the point I'm trying to make. War is terrible,and I'm not disputing that.
As far as WMDs go,we already know Saddam had the technological capability to make them. And when it comes to national security,having the ability to make a thermo-nuclear weapon is no different than having one currently in posession.
Would you rather let Saddam stay in power and murder innocent Iraqi civilians on a daily basis?
When was he next going to invade one of his neighbors like he did Kuwait in back in 1990?
Or would you rather have waited until he initiated a nuclear strike on Israel or Kuwait?

The world is a lot safer with him out of power. That's my justification.

[Spartan198]

Spartan, the problem you appear to be having is that you are not understanding this:

People can support the soldiers, but not the war.

Learn to seperate the two and all will be well.

Like I said,I'm neutral when it comes to Bush,but I chose to support the war because Saddam Hussein was a war criminal in addition to being a general madman. So I'm not having any trouble here.
I'm not accusing anyone here,but if some people think I'm ignorant or stupid for believing that we've done good over there and can win this war,so be it. It doesn't hurt me,nor will it change my own view.
We both know that doesn't make me a bad person.

[Brenus]

“This guy, a deserter, puts forward all that heinous bull just to justify his disgraceful actions, yet the majority of all those nimrods claiming”: Whaw, for somebody claiming to be neutral, that is a typical Moscow Trial vocabulary from the 1930’s Uncle Joe Stalin vocabulary…

“personally am politically impartial”: You’re having a

[Spartan198]

“This guy, a deserter, puts forward all that heinous bull just to justify his disgraceful actions, yet the majority of all those nimrods claiming”: Who, for somebody claiming to be neutral, that is a typical Moscow Trial vocabulary from the 1930’s Uncle Joe Stalin vocabulary…

“personally am politically impartial”: You’re having a

I'm politically impartial,but pro-military. Politics have no place on the battlefield. When you're hunkered down in the dunes,taking heavy incoming fire,which are you gonna depend on more,Senator whatever-his-name-is back in the States or the M4 in your hands?

Being politically impartial is seperate from being militarily impartial.
Regardless of how many medals those idiots on YouTube wanna give the guy,he's still a coward who deserted his unit in the line of duty and should be put in prison,no matter how many lies he tries to justify it with.

[CountArach]

Like I said,I'm neutral when it comes to Bush,but I chose to support the war because Saddam Hussein was a war criminal in addition to being a general madman.

That did not become an issue until the WMDs were not found. At this point Bush realised that he needed to find another reason to be at war and "We love Democracy... let's fight for the extremely limited version we are giving to the Iraqis!" became convenient.

Regardless of how many medals those idiots on YouTube wanna give the guy,he's still a coward who deserted his unit in the line of duty and should be put in prison,no matter how many lies he tries to justify it with.

Do you support Bush's impeachment?

[Pannonian]

That's not the point I'm trying to make. War is terrible,and I'm not disputing that.
As far as WMDs go,we already know Saddam had the technological capability to make them. And when it comes to national security,having the ability to make a thermo-nuclear weapon is no different than having one currently in posession.
Would you rather let Saddam stay in power and murder innocent Iraqi civilians on a daily basis?
When was he next going to invade one of his neighbors like he did Kuwait in back in 1990?
Or would you rather have waited until he initiated a nuclear strike on Israel or Kuwait?

The world is a lot safer with him out of power. That's my justification.

Point 1: Saddam had the tech capability to make WMDs.
So? Any reasonably technologically advanced country has the capability to produce them. Any country that can produce drugs for its own people will have the know how to make WMDs. Any advanced chemistry class in any university will have the capability to produce WMDs. How am I supposed to be especially alarmed by this?

Point 2: Having the ability to produce a thermo-nuclear weapon is no different from having one currently in possession.
Firstly, where's the evidence showing that Iraq had the ability to produce a thermo-nuclear weapon? They're slightly different from chemical weapons, you know, and require rather more infrastructure. Secondly, having the ability to produce one and actually having one is definitely different. That's why Germany, Japan, and other advanced westernised countries aren't nuclear powers.

Point 3: Saddam should be stopped from murdering innocent Iraqi citizens on a daily basis.
Why should it be any business of mine? They're Iraqi citizens, not British citizens, and their welfare doesn't affect me.

Point 4: He's going to invade another of his neighbours.
Is there any evidence he was going to do that? Don't point to 1990, that's 18 years ago (13 before the start of OIF), show me how he was going to invade anyone now (or in 2003).

Answer the above points. Also, don't talk about nuclear strikes if you can't answer point 2.

[Tribesman]

I chose to support the war because Saddam Hussein was a war criminal in addition to being a general madman. So I'm not having any trouble here.

I chose to oppose the war because Bush was a war criminal in addition to being a general madman. So I'm not having any trouble here.

[Spartan198]

Do you support Bush's impeachment?

I believe every leader should have to account for his actions. Give me a link to the details of a possible Bush impeachment,then I can answer that.

[Spartan198]

Point 1: Saddam had the tech capability to make WMDs.
So? Any reasonably technologically advanced country has the capability to produce them. Any country that can produce drugs for its own people will have the know how to make WMDs. Any advanced chemistry class in any university will have the capability to produce WMDs. How am I supposed to be especially alarmed by this?

Exactly. All it takes is one nutcase with the knowledge to bring on a nuclear cataclysm.

Point 2: Having the ability to produce a thermo-nuclear weapon is no different from having one currently in possession.
Firstly, where's the evidence showing that Iraq had the ability to produce a thermo-nuclear weapon? They're slightly different from chemical weapons, you know, and require rather more infrastructure. Secondly, having the ability to produce one and actually having one is definitely different. That's why Germany, Japan, and other advanced westernised countries aren't nuclear powers.

Here's my answer.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/na...ty/disarm.html

Point 3: Saddam should be stopped from murdering innocent Iraqi citizens on a daily basis.
Why should it be any business of mine? They're Iraqi citizens, not British citizens, and their welfare doesn't affect me.

Why does caring about my fellow human beings make me a bad person. The Iraqi people are no less human than us Yanks and Brits. If you don't care about them,that's your choice. It doesn't hurt me.

Point 4: He's going to invade another of his neighbours.
Is there any evidence he was going to do that? Don't point to 1990, that's 18years ago (13 before the start of OIF), show me how he was going to invade anyone now (or in 2003).

We didn't know Nazi Germany was going to invade Poland prior to 1939,either,did we? Okay,now apply that answer to the above question.
And in case you try to rebound back by saying "Saddam isn't Hitler",Saddam's Baath Party was actually modeled after the Third Reich.

[Spartan198]

I chose to oppose the war because Bush was a war criminal in addition to being a general madman. So I'm not having any trouble here.

Nice rebound. Really well thought out.
Remind me,when was the last time Bush ordered the wholesale killing of Americans with chemical weapons? Oh,right... NEVER.

[Tribesman]

Give me a link to the details of a possible Bush impeachment,then I can answer that.

Where have you been for the last 5 years ?
Though personally I wouldn't bother with the breaking the oath of office , violations of the constitution or any of that other little stuff , I would go straight for the treason angle , absolute despicable undeniable treason of the highest order

Here's my answer.

ah that explains a lot , it answers my question...Where have you been for the last 5 years ?

Please keep up , that answer you linked to has long been established as bollox , even at the time it was given it was widely described as bollox .
Have you perhaps been living the life of a hermit ?
Shut off from the world in total isolation maybe ?
Can you tell what year it is ?

We didn't know Nazi Germany was going to invade Poland prior to 1939,either,did we?

No of course not , thats why there was no worries about the Danzig problem and no countries said they would intervene in the event of a German invasion of Poland

[Tribesman]

Remind me,when was the last time Bush ordered the wholesale killing of Americans with chemical weapons? Oh,right... NEVER.

Oh dear , another one who can line up behind Mars to read the treaties on war crimes
Would you like to debate war crimes Spartan ?
Would you like to limit it to Americas involvement in Saddams War crimes or would you like to focus on Bush's war crimes ?

Really well thought out.

Given the content of your posts so far in this topic I would say that you appear to be largely devoid of anything mildly relating to the thought process.

[CountArach]

I believe every leader should have to account for his actions. Give me a link to the details of a possible Bush impeachment,then I can answer that.

As always wiki provides the answers.

[Quirinus]

Why is it that everyone assumes [...] everything anti-Bush / anti-war is always truth even if it ends up proven to be a lie?

Agree with most of your opinions, but this I must disagree with. Michael Moore is the most obvious case in point. I'm not sure who hates Michael Moore more, the 'right' he lambasts or the 'left' he's supposed to be representing. We have Bill O'Reilly and John Ashcroft on one end and Michael Moore on the other.

IMO.

[Adrian II]

Why is it that everyone assumes everything pro-Bush / pro-war is lies without any proof beyond what some nutjob says on a You Tube video or something,but everything anti-Bush / anti-war is always truth even if it ends up proven to be a lie?

Why does everyone think that everyone else is on the Internet calling everyone else a liar?

Wait, make that everyone minus 1.

[Pannonian]

Exactly. All it takes is one nutcase with the knowledge to bring on a nuclear cataclysm.
Erm, the WMDs I was talking about was chemical weapons, which any university chemistry lab can produce. Heck, people can download instructions from the internet and make their own using products available off the shelf. A nuclear weapon requires huge intellectual and physical infrastructure to produce, which Iraq lacked.


Here's my answer.
http://wnww.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ationalsecurity/disarm.html
Hang on. Isn't that the stuff that was discredited long ago?


Why does caring about my fellow human beings make me a bad person. The Iraqi people are no less human than us Yanks and Brits. If you don't care about them,that's your choice. It doesn't hurt me.
It hurts me to have to pay for a war that we did not need. Perhaps you wish to bring your liberal dream to all the peoples of the world, but my first concern is the bottom line.


We didn't know Nazi Germany was going to invade Poland prior to 1939,either,did we? Okay,now apply that answer to the above question.
And in case you try to rebound back by saying "Saddam isn't Hitler",Saddam's Baath Party was actually modeled after the Third Reich.
I don't really care what it's modelled on, I only care about its capabilities and known intentions. I don't really wish to make war on every two-bit neo-Nazi in the UK, because I know their capabilities are ridiculously low and they can be safely ignored. Show me how Iraq was a threat to anyone in 2003.

[Spartan198]

Where have you been for the last 5 years ?
Though personally I wouldn't bother with the breaking the oath of office , violations of the constitution or any of that other little stuff , I would go straight for the treason angle , absolute despicable undeniable treason of the highest order

First off,I don't watch the damn news anymore because it's just as biased as everyone else seems to be. The media is destroying more and more public support everyday because all they can report is the bad stuff. You wanna talk about treason,add the US Media to the list of offenders. I don't believe everything I hear from them right off the bat.

ah that explains a lot , it answers my question...Where have you been for the last 5 years ?
Please keep up , that answer you linked to has long been established as bollox , even at the time it was given it was widely described as bollox .
Have you perhaps been living the life of a hermit ?
Shut off from the world in total isolation maybe ?
Can you tell what year it is ?

Same response as above applies to the hermit question. Yes,I know what year it is. You don't have to be so condescending about it.
And if documents like that from my government are rubbish,how can the Downing Street Memo (of which the authenticity is disputed) or the Bush-Blair 2003 Iraq Memo (which,if authentic,proves the UK was just as intent on invading as the US was and should implicate the UK Prime Minister,as well) not be considered the same thing?

No of course not , thats why there was no worries about the Danzig problem and no countries said they would intervene in the event of a German invasion of Poland

Exactly right. Just means that those in power expected him to attack a neighbor in the near future.