You beat me to it, and much more succinctly.Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
You beat me to it, and much more succinctly.Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.
Though new here,right from the get-go, I had Gawain classed as a chap who enjoyed (loved, reveled in) the argument most of all. He's closest to a Libertarian, I suspect, though not strictly in that camp. However, if Red Harvest and Gawain were to purposely switch sides in the argument, Red would enjoy the intellectual challenge while Gawain would just have a blast firing bolts with his other hand. Why do you think I suggested them for captains...
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
Gawain has, in no way, liberal views. In my opinion at least...
Care to provide some proof of that? Why not ask the man himself?Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon
RIP Tosa
I'll find some soon...![]()
Ok...Let's see here
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=43688
Now, I may have missed something, but there you go.
His title, and that club is all the proof I can come up with on the spot...
Wow, great work, you should work for the ACLU.Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon
RIP Tosa
Come on man, no need to be nasty...
![]()
I just ran across an article in the Village Voice that identifies one of the officers at the Bush photo-op as Master Sergeant Corine Lombardo, 42nd Infantry Division Public Affairs.
One of the Voice's reporters knows her from his time in Tikrit, and says that her job includes taking reporters out to lunch. He also said that she lives in a fortified compound and rarely leaves.
Bush apparently asked her the wrong question: "Is it possible to give us a sense, kind of a calibration of what life was like when you first got there, and what it's like today?"
Her response was to launch into a completely unconnected bit about how swimmingly the training of Iraqi security forces is going, etc., etc. Bush then called her Sergeant Major. Embarrassing.
I'm only mentioning this because it shows just how corrupt and worthless this sort of media display can be. Bush's PR people set up an event where he and military PR people could say nice things to each other in front of the cameras. Then they have the nerve to actually coach the participants in front of the media... and they still expect the media to go along with the idea that this is an unscripted "conversation" with "US troops in Iraq". It's just bad PR.
The media should pull the curtain back on these events more frequently than they do.
And their stupid enough to let the media tape it. This is such nonsense. Again anyone who has been through this sort of thing in the military knows its SOP.
Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way
Once more slowly. He didnt give them the answers. I can give you many more examples of presidents and the press itself staging things if you really want to travel down that road.
Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way
I think that's known as an "Irrelevant Conclusion".Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
"Don't believe everything you read online."
-Abraham Lincoln
That almost made sense. Right up until that last couple of sentences.Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
"Put 'em in blue coats, put 'em in red coats, the bastards will run all the same!"
"The English are a strange people....They came here in the morning, looked at the wall, walked over it, killed the garrison and returned to breakfast. What can withstand them?"
The last two sentences make perfect sense. If Liberals were TRUELLY commited about stopping terrorism, ending war, and helping people have a fair and democratic government, they would, instead of trying to undercut the efforts of the US and other free nations that are making an attempt to change things, they would ASSIST in the cause instead of growing dreadlocks, smoking weed, and marching around banging on drums yelling out nifty little 60's catch phrases. "Make love not war?" Doesn't do you much good if an extremist Islamofascist just sliced off your head or incinerated you with a nuke.Originally Posted by Slyspy
RIP Tosa
That's rediculous. You know terrorists have stepped up there efforts since we've been in Iraq. You know, a veteran (which from what I gathered you are) like yourself, should be looking after soldiers. Bush throws 18 year old kids away to "end terrorism". What use is training when they pack a car with 50 lbs of C4?Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Liberals, like myself love the troops. I support them all the time. I hate to see them fail and them die. The grim reality is, we invaded there country. If we're going to do that, they can make us leave them alone by whatever measures they feel nessasary. If that involves blowing themselves up, then that's what they think they must do.
Last edited by Alexanderofmacedon; 10-15-2005 at 20:27.
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon
Please tell me you are intoxicated...please![]()
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
No, just really pissed that some one would say I don't care about our soldiers. For some one to say I am a traitor. Do you really think liberals are traitors?
P.S: I shouldn't stoop down to his level, I'll edit that last part...
Please, edit your post to not show what I originally said. I said that without thinking, and am ashamed.
Last edited by Alexanderofmacedon; 10-15-2005 at 20:28.
Thank God the veterans of World War II didn't have this kind of support you're offering.Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon
RIP Tosa
What are you talking about? When we protest we want them out of there. If we want them out we are looking out for them? Why do you think we are not loyal? I really don't think we're doing anything wrong. I think conservatives, are giving them encouragement, but I think liberal's want them safe as much as anyone. I think you should look at what you're saying more closely...![]()
You can not just divide America into two groups. Allot of people who want diffrent things. Some libs hate the milatary, Some neo-cons dont care how many die they just care about the bottom line. You my friend are oversimplfying the situation.Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
Don't you want it simpler?
You're right though. I'll even go as far as saying Dave is right too. There are plenty of liberals that hate our militaries, and things like that. Those are the crazy far lefters in which I am ashamed of.
You have to realize, conservatives have the same thing. Many far righters would like to slaughter innocent Iraqi people for what others of their race have done.
I am not one of those far lefters. I support troops, and I'll look at everyone's point of view. I think with any way of thinking there is a limit. Many liberals cross it and conservatives alike.
Lambasting a foolish, shortsighted, unprepared Administration that is in denial for its mishandling of the efforts does not undercut the troops. Quite the opposite. I support our troops and would have no problem putting my own neck on the line. However, I refuse to sit silently while fools in govt mismanage the war. This isn't about our fighting men and women. This is about the incompetent boobs that failed to properly support them. That would be Bush, Cheney, Rummy, etc.Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
In addition to mishandling the post invasion, they launched the war under false pretenses/justification, and our soldiers are paying the price for the politicians' errors. It undercut us and encouraged the insurgency.
I'm not for setting deadlines for withdrawal in public, it only helps the enemy. But I do expect results. You either do something to force the win, or you get out. Sitting there taking a beating indefinitely for no gain is STUPID in the extreme. At some point, a decision must be made as to whether this is salvageable or a quagmire.
Trying to shift blame to the opposition is foolish. Sheehan and the others didn't screw up this war. Dubya and his legion of simpleton cronies did that. There were voices of dissent in his own party and within the military about what the effort would require, but they were ingnored and ridiculed. Instead, the occupation was done with one hand tied behind our back, all for the sake of political appearances.
What this shows is what a strategic blunder Bush made. He lost the initiative. Instead of being on the offensive, we are now stuck on the defensive. Brilliant, just friggin' brilliant...and I thought Saddam was a dope when it came to military matters.
Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.
Couldn't have said it better myself...![]()
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
GC:
You seem to acknowledge that many (most?) Presidents use staged events and interactions to further their political agenda (Correct me if I am wrong).
You then assert that such staged interactions are bad. You label them this way, I presume, because you believe that the staging renders them irrelevant and/or disengenuous (Again, correct me if necessary).
If such efforts to "manage" media presentations are discarded, you leave the Presidency with 2 choices: make few or zero presentations aside from written briefings or have the President always interacting extemporaneously and responsible for handling any and all subjects under the aegis of the adminstration at any moment. You will, or course, recognize the virtual impossibility for anyone -- and certainly not the less-than-glib Dubya -- to handle the latter. If you can only choose a leader who is able to handle virtually all policy subjects extemporaneously, you reduce the pool of potential leaders to the thin fraction of political figures possessing JFK-esque glibness.
As a consumer of political information, I generally assume that some degree of stage management is involved and that the whole event is crafted to further the goals of the administration. Using this interpretive lens, I am able to glean whatever value from it that I, as the consumer, deem appropriate. On the whole, this doesn't bother me; I simply factor the bias in when making my own evaluation -- as I am sure you do as well.
I am not advocating that all Presidential communication be reduced to whole-cloth propaganda, but I believe that implicitly setting up the standard of an "extemporaneous" Presidency is unrealistic and possibly counter-productive. Thoughts?
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
Well for once your totally correct.Couldn't have said it better myself![]()
By the way as someone who went through this sort of liberal hogwash I can tell you nothing demoralises the troops more than hearing people like you guys claim to support us while undermining our mission. Its the height of hypocrisy.
Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way
And why exactly we are on the defensive? Its because of weak kneed terrorist sympothyzing liberals that, instead of attacking the enemy, they attack their own side (if you can call liberals of the country on the side of the US) only to weaken the position of the United States and give aid and comfort to the enemy. But I'll never convice you of it, your hatred for this Administration comes way ahead of any regard to the country that you were blessed to be born into.Originally Posted by Red Harvest
RIP Tosa
Dave, I'm afraid you're a little to far right. Strike for the South openly expresses his opinions as a conservative and yet I still consider him a good friend. I wish you weren't so nasty about it...
What a load of CRAP! First of all, I've yet to see these "terrorist sympathizing liberals." They aren't giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Second, liberals didn't create this situation. The poorly considered Iraqi operation did. To put it another way, if someone can't run an operation without having 100% support at home, then their plan is totally unworkable and doomed from the start. Is that your position, that some dissent is the reason the war is not being won?Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
I was one of those misguided independents that favored going in. I honestly did not believe the Administration could screw this up, and because of European/Arab pressures to end the sanctions, we were reaching a critical point (thanks again France, Germany, etc.) My disgust with the Administration has grown out of the strategic blunders used to launch the war, and out of their continued misunderstanding of what they were up against. I'm not letting that color my perception of our forces, but it does effect my judgement of what they can now accomplish.
We are on the defensive, because we never stabilized the country. There aren't any liberals responsible for that failure. Passing the buck isn't going to work.
Worse than that, the fiasco has tied our hands with respect to Iran and North Korea and diverted our attention from Afghanistan, etc.
If you want to look for traitors, find those who mislead our country into backing action on false information. Those are your traitors.
Dissent is not treason. If you don't agree with that, go live in Cuba.
Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.
Bam...
And the press is suppossed to seek the truth not just pursue their own agenda.
Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way
Bookmarks