i am wrong again

[lamboguy]

when this conflict with ISIS or ISIL came up, i thought it unite people in this country and that we would all come together to wipe them out.

yesterday i saw a question posed to Harvard students that asked who was to blame for the world problems, the United States or Islamic terrorists. one by one the students answered the United States.

maybe its me that has no clue, but i have been around the block a few times. my mother taught me about the evil in people throughout the world. to me guys that hide their faces and takes people's heads off are lowlife cowards and need to be dealt with.

[DJofSD]

The response from the Harvard student is not a surprise to me.

It is sad for us we tolerate traitors in our midst.

[alydar]

While I am disappointed to hear the reaction of Harvard students, I agree it is not a total surprise. As far as calling them traitors, no I don't agree with that. This is a free country, where we are all free to disagree. That is what makes this country great. Tolerance of different opinions may be difficult at times, but it is what has made this country the nation it is.

if you are looking to somehow quiet those who disagree with your opinion I would suggest to you that opinion is not in the American spirit.

[sammy the sage]

not ALL people who represent THIS country....USA....are good...some agenda are totally evil as well...sorry...and ya'll really can't be that NAIVE....but ever since we gave native Americans blankets INFECTED w/smallpox...it is what it is...always has...always will...

sure still think over-all we're good cops/guys/gals/world helpers...but there is some evil in parts of the underbelly...rotten apple in the barrel...stupid decisions for the benefit of a few...

and Americans in general are becoming MORE observant and wiser to THOSE facts...well some anyways....

[tucker6]

We should not be surprised by the Harvard student response considering the Vietnam War response. Historical perspective has shown that young people lack historical perspective when providing opinions and when voting.

I'm specifically addressing the response to the soldiers in that war.

[davew]

Ths truly sad state is there are many people that feel the same as Obama on many areas in this country and world.

[Robert Goren]

Every week or so the neocons come up with a new "greatest threat to this country ever". Some people aren't buying their panic anymore. When consider the neocons' track record, some skepticism is justified.

[DJofSD]

Here's the latest threat: over use of the word "neo-con."

[Clocker]

It is sad for us we tolerate traitors in our midst.

They don't know any better. Most of them have little or no real world experience and their views are shaped by their peers, their professors and their parents. You would probably get the same results if you polled the faculty.

[Tom]

Hard to believed, but we did have people here in the 1930's and 40's who supported the Nazis.

We called them Kennedy's back then.

[DJofSD]

Hard to believed, but we did have people here in the 1930's and 40's who supported the Nazis.

We called them Kennedy's back then.
Ain't history a bitch?

[Clocker]

Every week or so the neocons come up with a new "greatest threat to this country ever".

So does Obama. And it is always something other than the administration screw-up of the week that he is drawing a lot of heat for. How many issues has he called the defining problem of our times? The first thing he thinks of when he gets up in the morning and the last thing he thinks of when he goes to bed at night? Jobs, global warming, health care, the economy, racism, income inequality, immigration, etc. Hint: none of them involve defense or foreign relations. Or fiscal responsibility.

[FantasticDan]

Here is the brief (but dastardly) video that the OP is talking about :rolleyes: :cool:

9EtuPJ0H-Fc#t=82

[woodtoo]

They don't know any better. Most of them have little or no real world experience and their views are shaped by their peers, their professors and their parents. You would probably get the same results if you polled the faculty.

Those were my thoughts when I saw the interviews.

[ArlJim78]

We should stay out of this ISIL thing. The continuous war people have not convinced me that they have any clue about how to fight and win this war, and unless we can define that we should stay out. I think its a game played on all sides. we're now fighting against people using our own weapons.

the Harvard students should not a surprise, hell it's the same view held by President Obola and the mainstream Democratic party. a rich, powerful, successful US rooted in capitalism is considered evil, greedy and oppressive.

[Robert Goren]

Here's the latest threat: over use of the word "neo-con."You are probably correct. I did lump in with the neocons a bunch of people who are not neocons, but want the country to get involve militarily in lot of places like the neocons, but who do not share the same motives as the neocons. Most prominent among those groups are the people who see an Islamic terrorist behind every door where the communists used be hiding.

[tucker6]

You are probably correct. I did lump in with the neocons a bunch of people who are not neocons, but want the country to get involve militarily in lot of places like the neocons, but who do not share the same motives as the neocons. Most prominent among those groups are the people who see an Islamic terrorist behind every door where the communists used be hiding.
So in your view, should we have not fought:

1. WWII
2. The Cold War
3. Korea
4. Vietnam
5 & 6. Gulf wars I and II
7. Afghanistan

What are the other wars the 'neo-cons' supported that normal, intelligent people like yourself did not? Or do neo-cons only get to vote on going to war?

I don't agree with all the wars we fight, and some I mention above were started by Democrats. In fact, of the seven conflicts I note, the first four were started by democrats. I don't see the bias you do, except the one you harbor.

For the record, I support 1, 2, 5, and 7.

[mostpost]

Here is the brief (but dastardly) video that the OP is talking about :rolleyes: :cool:

9EtuPJ0H-Fc#t=82
There were four students interviewed in that video and lamboguy and DJofSD and clocker and other low information posters think that is a sign of the apocalypse. Several things we need to consider.
1. Why only four students of a campus with tens of thousands.
2. Campus Reform is a conservative organization which uses the conservative trick of selectively editing its videos to achieve its aims. Those aims are to fool the not too bright into thinking that American campuses are infested with America hating liberals who are one step away from flying off to Syria to join the Jihad.
3. What the students said is true. The underlying cause of all the problems is that Israel was established with no input from the Arab states. We took land they consider to be theirs. We ignored their objections. We invaded Iraq under false pretenses because we were afraid our oil supplies would be cut off. We have installed puppet governments in Afghanistan and Iraq and other places. There is a lot of blame for the situation in the Middle East that can be placed at the doorstep of America and the Western allies; and Russia (Soviet Union) is not blameless.

Now any and all of the terrorist groups, be they ISIS or Al Qaeda or Hamas or Hezbollah bear a large share of the blame for the world as it exists today.
But so do we.

[mostpost]

The response from the Harvard student is not a surprise to me.

It is sad for us we tolerate traitors in our midst.
Recognizing that your country has flaws does not make one a traitor.
Refusing to recognize that fact does not make one a patriot.

[mostpost]

my mother taught me about the evil in people throughout the world.
And therein lies your problem. Your mother should have taught you about the good in people throughout the world. There is a lot more good than evil. In every country. In every religion.

[PaceAdvantage]

Hard to believed, but we did have people here in the 1930's and 40's who supported the Nazis.

We called them Kennedy's back then.ZING!

[mostpost]

So in your view, should we have not fought:

1. WWII
2. The Cold War
3. Korea
4. Vietnam
5 & 6. Gulf wars I and II
7. Afghanistan

What are the other wars the 'neo-cons' supported that normal, intelligent people like yourself did not? Or do neo-cons only get to vote on going to war?

I don't agree with all the wars we fight, and some I mention above were started by Democrats. In fact, of the seven conflicts I note, the first four were started by democrats. I don't see the bias you do, except the one you harbor.

For the record, I support 1, 2, 5, and 7.
1. If ever there was a just war, this was it.
2. That is not actually a war, but we had little choice but to fight it.
3. This war ended with the status exactly as it was before the war started so it may seem it was futile. Had we not intervened the entire Korean peninsula would have been under the control of a brutal dictator. Don't forget we had treaties with South Korea.
4, 6 and 7. While different in detail, these were all wars in which we perceived a threat from these countries and acted to neutralize that threat.
In all three cases it involved us fighting on foreign soil against a non traditional enemy. In all cases it did not end well.
5. This was a war with a specific, just purpose-freeing Kuwait from Iraq and Saddam Hussein. The objective was achieved and there was no mission creep. At worst I would be neutral about this war.


To recap I strongly support our involvement in World War II; moderately support our involvement in Korea and Gulf War I; support our involvement in Afghanistan, but only to the point where we could have captured bin Laden at Tora Bora; Strongly oppose our involvement in Viet Nam and invasion of Irag; and consider the Cold War not germane to this discussion.

[Tom]

You are probably correct. I did lump in with the neocons a bunch of people who are not neocons, but want the country to get involve militarily in lot of places like the neocons, but who do not share the same motives as the neocons. Most prominent among those groups are the people who see an Islamic terrorist behind every door where the communists used be hiding.

And yet all we heard for years was how 9/11 was Bush's fault for not paying attention to one daily briefing memo.

Today you guys are happy to discount the murder of Americans if it means not having to admit you are wrong. Fort Hood, Benghazi....beheadings...

Bobby, if we ever ave to choose up sides, I will take whatever one you are not on..

[NJ Stinks]

And yet all we heard for years was how 9/11 was Bush's fault for not paying attention to one daily briefing memo.

Today you guys are happy to discount the murder of Americans if it means not having to admit you are wrong. Fort Hood, Benghazi....beheadings...

Bobby, if we ever ave to choose up sides, I will take whatever one you are not on..

Only somebody like you would defend GWB (thousands of Americans died under his leadership) and scream like a banshee about less than 2 dozen deaths while Obama is President.

Let's just say if I'm doing the picking, I'm not picking you. :ThmbDown:

[rastajenk]

Thousands, vs. less than a couple dozen? If there's any pickin' going on, it's cherry-picking of a most dishonest nature.

[HUSKER55]

Only somebody like you would defend GWB (thousands of Americans died under his leadership) and scream like a banshee about less than 2 dozen deaths while Obama is President.

Let's just say if I'm doing the picking, I'm not picking you. :ThmbDown:

YEA BUT,... this administration killed them

[HUSKER55]

when this conflict with ISIS or ISIL came up, i thought it unite people in this country and that we would all come together to wipe them out.

yesterday i saw a question posed to Harvard students that asked who was to blame for the world problems, the United States or Islamic terrorists. one by one the students answered the United States.

maybe its me that has no clue, but i have been around the block a few times. my mother taught me about the evil in people throughout the world. to me guys that hide their faces and takes people's heads off are lowlife cowards and need to be dealt with.


I wonder what they would say if I were president and dealt with the situation.


But then again we would not hear from them as I would make them work off their student loans cleaning up after ISIS.

[Clocker]

Thousands, vs. less than a couple dozen? If there's any pickin' going on, it's cherry-picking of a most dishonest nature.

It was just a rounding error I'm sure.

U.S. military deaths in the 13-year Afghanistan war increased nearly fourfold under President Barack Obama, from an estimated 558 at the end of the previous administration to at least 2,207 now.

Source (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/10/06/U-S-Military-Deaths-in-Afghan-War-Increase-4-Fold-From-558-to-2-207)

[Tom]

and scream like a banshee about less than 2 dozen deaths

What is your tipping point?
2 dozen is acceptable to you.....at what count do you care?

And I was not defending Bush, I was condemning your side.

If you do a search here, I think you will find many posts where I took Bush to task for not allowing our troops to fight 100%. I called for the World Court to try him for treason over 2 border guards in prison.

My tipping point is 1.

[Tom]

It was just a rounding error I'm sure.



Source (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/10/06/U-S-Military-Deaths-in-Afghan-War-Increase-4-Fold-From-558-to-2-207)

Where is the nightly body count on the alphabet news channels?
I think that in itself proves American lives mean nothing to the left unless they can used politically.

[DJofSD]

Only somebody like you would defend GWB (thousands of Americans died under his leadership) and scream like a banshee about less than 2 dozen deaths while Obama is President.

Let's just say if I'm doing the picking, I'm not picking you. :ThmbDown:
If I am going to go down, I'd rather it be after putting up a fight.

With this regime they'd rather just place blame and position themselves for their plans after the next election -- screw the idea of fighting for any reason, good or bad, we got better things to do!

[GaryG]

Where is the nightly body count on the alphabet news channels?
I think that in itself proves American lives mean nothing to the left unless they can used politically.I remember that zilly used to post the war dead almost gleefully. Almost hell, it was gleefully.

[HUSKER55]

If I am going to go down, I'd rather it be after putting up a fight.

With this regime they'd rather just place blame and position themselves for their plans after the next election -- screw the idea of fighting for any reason, good or bad, we got better things to do!


How do you intend to go down fighting when the government outlaws gun ownership? This regime intends to roll over screaming for a tit!

I suppose we could feed them Mosty's rat shit and hope they die from that!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[mostpost]

It was just a rounding error I'm sure.



Source (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/10/06/U-S-Military-Deaths-in-Afghan-War-Increase-4-Fold-From-558-to-2-207)
Breitbart is a reliable source? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Yes, there numbers are close to right, but how about some context. The context is this.

After December 2001 there was very little US activity in Afghanistan. Most American troops were withdrawn and sent to fight in Iraq. As they were withdraw the Taliban, which had been decimated, began to recover.

While there were only 630 US casualties in Afghanistan up to the end of 2008, there were 4,222 US casualties in Iraq during that same period.
In 2009 we began drawing down our forces in Iraq. Since that date we have suffered 265 casualties in Iraq.

If we had finished the job in Afghanistan instead of rushing off on a fool's errand in Irag, we would have been out of the region years ago with far fewer casualties.

Here is a much more accurate and representative accounting of casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Beginning with 9/11 through the end of 2008 there were 7.25 years in which we were engaged in combat in the area. Counting both Iraq and Afghanistan, we suffered 4,852 casualties; an average of 776 per year.

From the beginning of 2009 to the present we have lost 1,980 persons in Iraq and Afghanistan. So rather than casualties under Obama being four times what they were under Bush; they are actually less than half.

I am very insulted that Mr. Breitbart thinks he can fool me with his phony numbers. On the other hand, I understand perfectly why he might think that about you.

[tucker6]

Yes, there numbers are close to right, but how about some context. The context is this.

You misspelled 'their'. Thought you'd want to know. ;)

[mostpost]

You misspelled 'their'. Thought you'd want to know. ;)
I do that all the time. :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

[Clocker]

Yes, there numbers are close to right

...

I am very insulted that Mr. Breitbart thinks he can fool me with his phony numbers.

Despite all that very elegant mathematical manipulation, you failed to address, let alone disprove, the point, which is that more than a few dozen Americans died under Obama's watch.

And somehow, though convoluted computational machinations that I did not bother to read, you conclude that the numbers which you admit are correct are, at the same time, phony.

Congratulations. You just achieved the near impossible feats of being insulted by, and losing a battle of wits with, the long deceased Mr. Breitbart.

[mostpost]

Hard to believed, but we did have people here in the 1930's and 40's who supported the Nazis.

We called them Kennedy's back then.
We also called them William Randolph Hearst and Andrew Mellon and John Rockefeller and Allen Dulles and Charles Lindberg. In 1942 the government seized the assets of one of Prescott Bush's companies under the Trading With The Enemy Act. Bush was on the Board of Diretors of many American companies which were subsidiaries of German companies such as Thyysen and IG Farben. The DuPont family were strong supporters of the Nazi regime in Germany.

So I would be careful of which pot you are calling black, Mr. Kettle.

[mostpost]

Despite all that very elegant mathematical manipulation, you failed to address, let alone disprove, the point, which is that more than a few dozen Americans died under Obama's watch.

And somehow, though convoluted computational machinations that I did not bother to read, you conclude that the numbers which you admit are correct are, at the same time, phony.

Congratulations. You just achieved the near impossible feats of being insulted by, and losing a battle of wits with, the long deceased Mr. Breitbart.
I know Mr. Breitbart is dead. A fact which I have yet to feel regret over. But I will keep trying.

I was responding to the Breitbart article that stated four times as many Americans died in Afghanistan under Obama as compared to under Bush. That is only relevant if you think the Americans who died in Iraq are less important than those who died in Afghanistan.

[reckless]

Here's the latest threat: over use of the word "neo-con."

DJ, it is rarely mentioned -- not only here on PA but throughout the political discussion universe -- but those that emphasize the term 'neo-con' are truly expressing anti-Semitic sentiment after you peel the onion.

And when the elites and others of the cognoscenti crowd utter the additional 'New York neo-con establishment' we're pretty sure they take their marching orders and talking points from the liberal academic and political establishment.

[Robert Goren]

So in your view, should we have not fought:

1. WWII
2. The Cold War
3. Korea
4. Vietnam
5 & 6. Gulf wars I and II
7. Afghanistan

What are the other wars the 'neo-cons' supported that normal, intelligent people like yourself did not? Or do neo-cons only get to vote on going to war?

I don't agree with all the wars we fight, and some I mention above were started by Democrats. In fact, of the seven conflicts I note, the first four were started by democrats. I don't see the bias you do, except the one you harbor.

For the record, I support 1, 2, 5, and 7.WWII,the Cold War, Korea and Gulf War I was not started any American president, republican or democrat. Vietnam was started by a democrat and Gulf War II was started by a republican. How Afghanistan turned from being a hunt for bin Laden to war isn't exactly clear but it happen under a republican. I was either not born yet or was too young to have an opinion on 1,2 and 3. Vietnam was a bad idea in hindsight. It started when I was in high school. I like almost all of my classmate did not like but we were too young to understand it except that we might have to fight in it. In college, I was against it and took part in several anti war rallies. I supported Gulf War I. I supported Gulf War II until it became apparent that we were lied to about the reasons we went in. I supported going after bin Laden. It is pretty hard to support what it turned into.
We should have two things going for us when we commit troops to battle. First, a good reason. Second, a reasonable chance of success in a reasonable amount of time. Goods reasons are pretty easy to find. A reasonable chance of success in a reasonable amount of time are not always there even though we have a good reason.

[reckless]

We also called them William Randolph Hearst and Andrew Mellon and John Rockefeller and Allen Dulles and Charles Lindberg. In 1942 the government seized the assets of one of Prescott Bush's companies under the Trading With The Enemy Act. Bush was on the Board of Diretors of many American companies which were subsidiaries of German companies such as Thyysen and IG Farben. The DuPont family were strong supporters of the Nazi regime in Germany.

So I would be careful of which pot you are calling black, Mr. Kettle.

Why wouldn't they mostpost -- most of those you mentioned supported Germany's National Socialist Party -- Nazis, to you and me -- they were Jew haters and anti-Semites.

Old anti-Semite Connecticut Yankee Prescott Bush owned a bank in Connecticut -- I believe it was called the Union Trust and Bank or some similar silly kind of name to swerve the country into believing he and they were patriotic. He was a huge supporter of the Nazis, as were those German companies --crony capitalists-- you named that supported Hitler and Company.

By using the tiresome pot calling the kettle black line I hope you weren't trying to suggest that since big business is somehow a 'conservative' entity, then one can't criticize what's going on today if that person is conservative without retribution from the left.

If that is what you implied, you are wrong, not to mention naïve.

[Robert Goren]

And yet all we heard for years was how 9/11 was Bush's fault for not paying attention to one daily briefing memo.

Today you guys are happy to discount the murder of Americans if it means not having to admit you are wrong. Fort Hood, Benghazi....beheadings...

Bobby, if we ever ave to choose up sides, I will take whatever one you are not on..As stated in the previous post, we have to a reason to believe that we might prevail in any action we take in the Middle East. We have plenty of good reasons to go over there and I have stated that over and over again. I just don't believe we have the military leadership need to succeed over there. Whether you blame Obama (I don't) or the generals, we just won't/can't do what needs to be done. I wish it were not so, but it isn't.

[Clocker]

That is only relevant if you think the Americans who died in Iraq are less important than those who died in Afghanistan.

Are you responding to anything in this thread, or to the voices in your head?

The article was cited simply to prove that more than a "few dozen" Americans died under Obama's administration, period. You are the one that side tracked it into a Wonderland of your own making.

[Robert Goren]

Why wouldn't they mostpost -- most of those you mentioned supported Germany's National Socialist Party -- Nazis, to you and me -- they were Jew haters and anti-Semites.

Old anti-Semite Connecticut Yankee Prescott Bush owned a bank in Connecticut -- I believe it was called the Union Trust and Bank or some similar silly kind of name to swerve the country into believing he and they were patriotic. He was a huge supporter of the Nazis, as were those German companies --crony capitalists-- you named that supported Hitler and Company.

By using the tiresome pot calling the kettle black line I hope you weren't trying to suggest that since big business is somehow a 'conservative' entity, then one can't criticize what's going on today if that person is conservative without retribution from the left.

If that is what you implied, you are wrong, not to mention naïve.Big business has always done what is best for their bottom line. They have a way of rationalizing everything. In fairness to them, for quite a while in the 1930s it was not clear that Germany was bigger threat than Russia. For the record Russia treatment of the Jews was not much better than the NAZIs.

[NJ Stinks]

Thousands, vs. less than a couple dozen? If there's any pickin' going on, it's cherry-picking of a most dishonest nature.

Does anybody here think Obama on his own would have put troops on the ground in Iraq? How about Afghanistan except to find Bin Laden?

Blaming Obama for deaths incurred while cleaning up GWB's messes is about as "dishonest" as one can get.

In baseball parlance, there is a reason why relievers aren't charged for runners left on base by the starting pitcher.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...

In baseball parlance, there is a reason why relievers aren't charged for runners left on base by the starting pitcher.

In baseball parlance, the problem is that his solution to inheriting men on base is to just start throwing wild pitches and beaning the batboy and whatever else looks like something newsworthy and might improve his fan appeal but not his stats all the while never actually trying to help the team he plays on actually win anything.

[tucker6]

Does anybody here think Obama on his own would have put troops on the ground in Iraq?

Hell, we can't even get Obama to punish Syria when they cross his line in the sand.

[HUSKER55]

Does anybody here think Obama on his own would have put troops on the ground in Iraq? How about Afghanistan except to find Bin Laden?

Blaming Obama for deaths incurred while cleaning up GWB's messes is about as "dishonest" as one can get.

In baseball parlance, there is a reason why relievers aren't charged for runners left on base by the starting pitcher.


doesn't change the score though...in baseball parlance ;)

[Tom]

I do that all the time. :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

They're, they're.....its' OK.