So Rumsfeld proves he is a...

[Tpoppa]

Oh yea, it says "consider what you're saying before you say it."  When that happens, the terrorists win. 

Incorrect.  It means say what people want to hear rather than the truth.  And say it in a way that you are pretty sure won't offend ANYONE.  Because, apparently Americans are now such pussies that we can tolerate the hearing the truth if it's unpopular, and we are so thin skinned that somehow we think being offended is a big deal.

 

That pussification and dumbing down has pretty much killed the once mighty 'American Spirit.'

[Bakemono]

how about those WMD's rummie?

Bingo!  Although the right wingers would tell you that the WMDs were never found because they were sold to Iran and N Korea.

[smccrory]

Incorrect.  It means say what people want to hear rather than the truth.  And say it in a way that you are pretty sure won't offend ANYONE.  Because, apparently Americans are now such pussies that we can tolerate the hearing the truth if it's unpopular, and we are so thin skinned that somehow we think being offended is a big deal.

 

That pussification and dumbing down has pretty much killed the once mighty 'American Spirit.'

 

On the contrary.  A critical and fundamental part of American Spirit is to give a crap about people who don't look, talk or pray like us.

[magley64]

On the contrary.  A critical and fundamental part of American Spirit is to give a crap about people who don't look, talk or pray like us.

 

that sounds like something a dirty commie would say...

 

or that sounds like some "social justice" nonsense

 

or aside from those native americans... like Ted Cruz said "if you like your land, you can keep it"

Edited March 26, 2014 by magley64

[Tpoppa]

On the contrary.  A critical and fundamental part of American Spirit is to give a crap about people who don't look, talk or pray like us.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Funny, I don't see anything about a guarantee that no one will ever be offended.  

[magley64]

 

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Funny, I don't see anything about a guarantee that no one will ever be offended.  

 

 

 

Great point... 

 

What that has to do with politicians being racists, or the political consequences of their either real or perceived racism, I don't see the connection. Unless of course they were tossed in jail for their racist comments...in which case I would advocate for their release.

Edited March 26, 2014 by magley64

[smccrory]

Great point... 

 

What that has to do with politicians being racists, or the political consequences of their either real or perceived racism, I don't see the connection. Unless of course they were tossed in jail for their racist comments...in which case I would advocate for their release.

 

Right, we're not talking about rounding up and jailing someone for their speech - we're talking about political correctness, no?

 

Speak as "frankly" as you want as long as it doesn't violate other laws (slander, libel, public calamity, etc.), just don't complain about the political consequences of revealing insensitive bias.

 

Remember, we teach children not to act like heathens and use swear words routinely for similar reasons.  Not as intellectual terrorism (LOL) but as a way to shape their thinking into more fore-thoughtful planes so that they're not cut off from opportunities.  I could draw a tattoo-on-the-forehead analogy as well.

[Pokey]

How in the world did Saddam kill thousands of people with those imaginary and pretend chemical weapons, I guess since none were found that makes them not existing to be true.

[smccrory]

How in the world did Saddam kill thousands of people with those imaginary and pretend chemical weapons, I guess since none were found that makes them not existing to be true.

 

So, this is where I admit that back then I bought into the WMD argument, in part because of he did indeed gas the Kurds - that's irrefutable.  In fact, I lost a good friend (KC-135 pilot and former SAC B-52 nuke bomber) by mirroring what Rummy, Dicky and Bushie lied to us about - it was he and thousands of others who paid with years of their lives (some, the ultimate cost) by doing what we the public told them to do.  So, please forgive me for not wanting to dive into conflict so ardently, and for not taking much of anything Rummy has to say as worth a hill of beans.

[magley64]

How in the world did Saddam kill thousands of people with those imaginary and pretend chemical weapons, I guess since none were found that makes them not existing to be true.

I'm a proponent of there being evidence of something before being declared as existing. especially if the existence or non existence becomes  a key or crucial point in something as serious as war.

[Pokey]

I'm a proponent of there being evidence of something before being declared as existing. especially if the existence or non existence becomes  a key or crucial point in something as serious as war.

We sure did not go there for the oil, that is obvious. And Saddam had and for sure used chemical weapons, and hiding whatever stockpile he had left would not be difficult over there. George and company did much of what is occurring now, it was a knee jerk reaction because of 911........somebody had to pay and something had to be done. I never agreed with us going over there, although I do believe that Saddam needed to be taken out for multiple obvious reasons.

[magley64]

We sure did not go there for the oil, that is obvious. And Saddam had and for sure used chemical weapons, and hiding whatever stockpile he had left would not be difficult over there. George and company did much of what is occurring now, it was a knee jerk reaction because of 911........somebody had to pay and something had to be done. I never agreed with us going over there, although I do believe that Saddam needed to be taken out for multiple obvious reasons.

 

No we went there because W was mad that saddam had threatened his daddy.

 

W's daddy issues, welcome to Iraq.

Edited March 26, 2014 by magley64

[Pokey]

So, this is where I admit that back then I bought into the WMD argument, in part because of he did indeed gas the Kurds - that's irrefutable.  In fact, I lost a good friend (KC-135 pilot and former SAC B-52 nuke bomber) by mirroring what Rummy, Dicky and Bushie lied to us about - it was he and thousands of others who paid with years of their lives (some, the ultimate cost) by doing what we the public told them to do.  So, please forgive me for not wanting to dive into conflict so ardently, and for not taking much of anything Rummy has to say as worth a hill of beans.

It was not all Bush and Rummie calling the shots and agreeing to go over there, I am sure many of the democrats were just fine with it. Pretty sure the UN sanctioned for us to invade and were just fine with it, but all we have done over there is open Pandora's box and let out all the bad guys who now want to takeover.

[smccrory]

We sure did not go there for the oil, that is obvious. And Saddam had and for sure used chemical weapons, and hiding whatever stockpile he had left would not be difficult over there. George and company did much of what is occurring now, it was a knee jerk reaction because of 911........somebody had to pay and something had to be done. I never agreed with us going over there, although I do believe that Saddam needed to be taken out for multiple obvious reasons.

 

I completely agree, and my ethical dilemma at the time was complicated because there were millions of Iraqis, HUMAN BEINGS, poisoned, murdered and jailed by their own leader because they didn't hold the same religious beliefs and tribal alignments.  It's morally repugnant for a person, let alone a 1st-world country like the U.S. to stand by and watch while we have the ability to intervene.  Add to that, our geopolitical interest in democracy and a coalition (as you mention in #38), and I leaned just right enough to let it happen with my sentiment and my votes.

 

The invasion was... magnificent.  Military tacticians will study the first and second gulf wars for 100 years.  But America's ability to stabilize infrastructure and provide occupational safety is abysmal, and it lost us the conflict.  Had everything turned out OK, our issue with WMD proof might be just an academic quibble.

[Tonik]

 Pretty sure the UN sanctioned for us to invade and were just fine with it, 

 

Sorry man, but no. Not even close to there being UN support.  We needed a super majority to pass it, 9 out of 15. We only had 4 so there was never a vote. Instead we said previous resolutions gave us the authority to do that.

[magley64]

It was not all Bush and Rummie calling the shots and agreeing to go over there, I am sure many of the democrats were just fine with it. Pretty sure the UN sanctioned for us to invade and were just fine with it, but all we have done over there is open Pandora's box and let out all the bad guys who now want to takeover.

 

It WAS Bush and Rummie yelling "WMD's" at the top of their lungs... Bush with his "NUKULER weapins". (sic)

 

The UN security council did NOT sanction it... 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War

Edited March 26, 2014 by magley64

[smccrory]

Sorry man, but no. Not even close to there being UN support.  We needed a super majority to pass it, 9 out of 15. We only had 4 so there was never a vote. Instead we said previous resolutions gave us the authority to do that.

 

Speaking of, does anyone know if we can finally give up that "freedom fries" silliness, hating the French because they didn't waltz into Iraq based on lies (at least vast exaggerations) with us, forgetting all the while that their support in the revolutionary way was critical in both the Atlantic and great lakes theaters against those nasty Brits?  There are still plenty of reasons to take issue with the French, but can we finally give up the "wit us, er agin us" schtick?

[magley64]

Speaking of, does anyone know if we can finally give up that "freedom fries" silliness, hating the French because they didn't waltz into Iraq based on lies (at least vast exaggerations) with us, forgetting all the while that their support in the revolutionary way was critical in both the Atlantic and great lakes theaters against those nasty Brits?  There are still plenty of reasons to take issue with the French, but can we finally give up the "wit us, er agin us" schtick?

 

I'm pretty sure the "freedom fry" trend died around the time of the famous "mission accomplished" banner.

[Tonik]

Speaking of, does anyone know if we can finally give up that "freedom fries" silliness, hating the French because they didn't waltz into Iraq based on lies (at least vast exaggerations) with us, forgetting all the while that their support in the revolutionary way was critical in both the Atlantic and great lakes theaters against those nasty Brits?  There are still plenty of reasons to take issue with the French, but can we finally give up the "wit us, er agin us" schtick?

 

No, because France was selling Iraq missiles and military gear during the entire time that the sanctions were in place. They were very dirty, they can blow me.

[Pokey]

Sorry man, but no. Not even close to there being UN support.  We needed a super majority to pass it, 9 out of 15. We only had 4 so there was never a vote. Instead we said previous resolutions gave us the authority to do that.

Well I wasn't totally confident they were onboard, but they sure seem to want us doing something to Russia for what they are doing at the moment. I have concerns on how all of this is going to play out, seems Putin is playing a big game of world chess. My son leaving for the Army in June is not helping me feel any better either.

[Tonik]

My son leaving for the Army in June is not helping me feel any better either.

 

I hear you, mine went in about a year before 9/11. Two tours in Iraq and one 2 week visit to Afgan that he still can't talk about.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Tonik

[magley64]

Putin is a punk. Invaded Crimea without admitting he invaded Crimea, talking shit... He's a toddler.

[smccrory]

I hear you, mine went in about a year before 9/11. Two tours in Iraq and one 2 week visit to Afgan that he still can't talk about.

 

Did he get stop-lossed?

[Tonik]

Did he get stop-lossed?

 

Surprisingly no. I think he got out just before the big stop losses hit, he was in the Marines and they traditionally don't have to do that as much.

[smccrory]

Surprisingly no. I think he got out just before the big stop losses hit, he was in the Marines and they traditionally don't have to do that as much.

 

Thank god.  Pretty raw when that happens.  Imagine being stop-lossed, then losing something important in your re-up.  I'm sick with what we expect our warriors to bear for us, and then act like a "thank you" in an airport or on a Facebook post is enough.  Jesus that gets my blood boiling.