Operation Stolen Valor

[BNaylor]

I saw this story on the evening news on ABC. Now this is fuckin' sad. So much for the credibility of the anti-war movement. This guy was nothing but a damn thief and these idiots with their political agenda a bunch of fools.

Crap like this is a disservice to and discredits all active duty military and veterans. Sorry for "discrediting anti-war groups"? They didn't need his apology and have a done a good job of that on their own.

Fake veteran gets 5-month sentence
Man claimed to have helped kill civilians in Iraq

Jesse MacBeth never was an Army Ranger, much less a corporal, never received a Purple Heart for wounds inflicted by a foreign foe, and neither saw nor participated in war crimes with fellow U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, claims for which he became a poster boy for the anti-war movement.

"I'm sorry not only for lying about everything and discrediting anti-war groups, but also for defaming the real heroes, the soldiers out there sacrificing for their country," MacBeth said. "I was trying to pull a fast one, to make money to get off the streets."

MacBeth fooled peace groups and alternative media to become something of an anti-war star over the past four years.

He claimed he witnessed and participated in war crimes in Iraq with other Rangers, slaughtering hundreds of unarmed men, women and children.

In a widely distributed Internet video translated into Arabic, Macbeth said. "We would burn their bodies ... hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque."

"Too many people with a political agenda grabbed ahold of Mr. MacBeth's story and ran with it because they wanted to believe it. Any sober look should have lead people to believe it was all a made-up rant," Lasnik said.

"They tried to make him a poster boy for their point of view, and I think that is outrageous," Lasnik said.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...ml?source=mypi

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/popup?id=3631779

[Shpyder]

Despicable. I am against this war through and through, but this is just pathetic. Defaming all those real warriors because you wanted to "get off the streets". Shame on this guy.

[RSX-S777]

Originally Posted by BNaylor

So much for the credibility of the anti-war movement.
[/i]

If this one liar destroys the credibility of the anti-war movement, then what of the group of soldiers who raped an Iraqi girl, then slaughtered her and her family and attempted to burn the bodies? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5529884

Does that destroy the credibility of the U.S Army?

How about the pumped up Marine who shot an unarmed, wounded Iraqi civilian in the head?
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2004/11/15/657/72666

Marine Corps credibility erased?


If you want to play that game we could easily go tit for tat...

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by RSX-S777

If you want to play that game we could easily go tit for tat...

Why am I not surprised to see how you would weigh-in on this thread. Taking it rather personal are we?

I was reflecting the sentiments of the Federal judge that dished out the punishment, however, he made a fair statement in this matter in which I agree with.

"Too many people with a political agenda grabbed ahold of Mr. MacBeth's story and ran with it because they wanted to believe it. Any sober look should have lead people to believe it was all a made-up rant," Lasnik said.

"They tried to make him a poster boy for their point of view, and I think that is outrageous," Lasnik said.

Yet, while MacBeth's actions embarrassed the anti-war movement, it cannot be argued, as other quarters of the blogosphere assert, "that all reports of abuse by Americans in Iraq are incorrect," Lasnik cautioned. The military justice system has brought to light and dealt with such reports, he said.

Bio:
Judge Robert S. Lasnik became Chief Judge of the Western District of Washington on September 1, 2004. He was appointed to the United States District Court by President Clinton in 1998. Prior to that he served as a King County Superior Court Judge for nine years. He formerly was Chief of Staff in the King County Prosecutor’s Office. Judge Lasnik graduated from Brandeis University with a degree in psychology and sociology and later obtained two master’s degrees from Northwestern University in journalism and in counseling. He is a graduate of the University of Washington School of Law and was an instructor there in Interviewing and Counseling for Lawyers. He is author of A Parent’s Guide to Adoption.

There is nothing wrong with being against the war, if that is your belief for whatever reasons. That is what makes America great. War is hell and brings out the bad in human beings. These were isolated incidents that took place in the fog of war and the military took the appropriate action. But to condemn the U.S. Military, in general, and take cheap shots is misplaced. Speaking of which...where is it (anti-war movement)? It looks like a joke to me in contrast to the real anti-war movement during the Viet Nam era. I have not seen one single protestor or anti-war activists in my area which incidently is a Democratic majority county.

Regardless, most Americans support the troops even though they are against the war. Poll goes back to when those incidents occurred but still holds true today.

Poll: Many support troops, but not the war
Updated 6/9/2006 3:55 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — Support the troops, oppose the war. The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that many Americans perceive the alleged atrocities against Iraqi civilians by U.S. forces as isolated incidents while saying the U.S.-led invasion was a mistake, a disconnect that sets this conflict apart from Vietnam.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...raq-poll_x.htm

[RSX-S777]

Originally Posted by BNaylor

Why am I not surprised to see how you would weigh-in on this thread. Taking it rather personal are we?

I was reflecting the sentiments of the Federal judge that dished out the punishment, however, he made a fair statement in this matter in which I agree with.

I don't take it personally. I just don't see where in your quote Lasnik claims that the anti-war movement has lost all credibility. That is your assertion. Lasnik points out (rightly) that the individuals who were duped should have been more astute.

Originally Posted by BNaylor

There is nothing wrong with being against the war, if that is your belief for whatever reasons. That is what makes America great. War is hell and brings out the bad in human beings. These were isolated incidents that took place in the fog of war and the military took the appropriate action. But to condemn the U.S. Military, in general, and take cheap shots is misplaced. Speaking of which...where is it (anti-war movement)? It looks like a joke to me in contrast to the real anti-war movement during the Viet Nam era. I have not seen one single protestor or anti-war activists in my area which incidently is a Democratic majority county.

No cheap shots against the military- I was only playing the same absurd game. I think anti-war sentiment is strong today, as it was in the sixties, but manifests itself differently, most notably via the internet- blogs, forums, political sites etc. (I protest against Bush, to your dismay, I think, every chance I get right here). In my mind utilizing the computer is far more productive and far reaching than free love and tripping (albeit not as fun). And aside from impeaching Bush, I think we have all pushed our agenda and made our opinion known with our votes- the House and Senate are proof of majority sentiment. With any luck the Presidential election will follow suit.

Originally Posted by BNaylor

Regardless, most Americans support the troops even though they are against the war.

I hope so. I count myself among that number. Best friend since childhood is serving his third tour with 4th MI. We'd rather not have him die to fulfill the greedy, reckless whims of our jackass President.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by RSX-S777

I don't take it personally. I just don't see where in your quote Lasnik claims that the anti-war movement has lost all credibility. That is your assertion. Lasnik points out (rightly) that the individuals who were duped should have been more astute.

Sure you don't. Actually, that is my opinion whether you like it or not. Sad when this so called anti-war movement has to revert to politicizing our troops and reverting to them being called "baby killers" to drive their point or agenda home. As far as I am concerned they have zero credibility. Also, don't confuse the anti-war movement with people that are now against the war after the fact. Not the same. Possibly hypocites but they are entitled to change their minds. Even I am against certain actions relating to the war but that is something you would not understand unless you really knew where I was coming from. I look at it from a viewpoint of the welfare of our troops. Your premise of whether there really is an anti-war movement is most likely based on worthless polls or other statistics which do not truly represent the rest of America and many geographical regions. I have not seen didly squat. Hiding behind your computer does not count. Funny how the Demos are anti-war when it serves their interests but war mongers otherwise. The protestors during the Viet Nam era were mostly apolitical and hated both the Democrats and Republicans. Today the anti-war movement consists primarily of bleeding heart liberal Democrats (far left). Big difference.

"There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli and Mark Twain

Yeah, read Lasnik's statement again not just what you want to read, parse, or comprehend. What he said speaks for itself.

"Too many people with a political agenda grabbed ahold of Mr. MacBeth's story and ran with it because they wanted to believe it. Any sober look should have lead people to believe it was all a made-up rant," Lasnik said.

"They tried to make him a poster boy for their point of view, and I think that is outrageous," Lasnik said.

Yet, while MacBeth's actions embarrassed the anti-war movement, it cannot be argued, as other quarters of the blogosphere assert, "that all reports of abuse by Americans in Iraq are incorrect," Lasnik cautioned. The military justice system has brought to light and dealt with such reports, he said.

Originally Posted by RSX-S777

No cheap shots against the military- I was only playing the same absurd game. I think anti-war sentiment is strong today, as it was in the sixties, but manifests itself differently, most notably via the internet- blogs, forums, political sites etc. (I protest against Bush, to your dismay, I think, every chance I get right here). In my mind utilizing the computer is far more productive and far reaching than free love and tripping (albeit not as fun). And aside from impeaching Bush, I think we have all pushed our agenda and made our opinion known with our votes- the House and Senate are proof of majority sentiment. With any luck the Presidential election will follow suit.

I don't play games especially when it deals with our troops. How do you know about that timeframe? Were you there? I was. That movement made a real impact on American society so don't ever sell it short. And the problem you have with Bush is yours not mine. Yeah, that was a real worthless election. Speaking of the House and Senate, what have they done since the Demos became the majority? Their poll ratings are lower than Bush's. And don't count your chickens before they hatch concerning the upcoming 2008 elections. It will take more than luck.

Originally Posted by RSX-S777

I hope so. I count myself among that number. Best friend since childhood is serving his third tour with 4th MI. We'd rather not have him die to fulfill the greedy, reckless whims of our jackass President.

Talk is cheap. At least your friend is serving his country whether good, bad or indifferent. When I was in uniform I respected the President of the U.S. regardless of who he was. A good soldier is not political and respects the Commander-in-Chief and the chain of command. I served under one of the worse Presidents we had...Jimmy Carter and still did my job even though I hated his guts. I have two sons serving our country. One in the Army and one in the Air Force. The fact that Bush is President did not change their minds to join up and serve their country. One of them has already served in Iraq too.

The bottom line is no one put a gun to your friend's head. Last time I checked we have a volunteer military. However, his service will never be forgotten and if he becomes a casualty of war (hopefully not) he will not die in vain. But that is something you would never understand. I commend him.

From what I see you are blinded by your hatred for Bush.

[RSX-S777]

Originally Posted by BNaylor

Sure you don't. Actually, that is my opinion whether you like it or not.

Exactly. It is your opinion- and it is the validity of your opinion I am calling into question- or at least the ridiculous conclusion you've reached.

Originally Posted by BNaylor

Sad when this so called anti-war movement has to revert to politicizing our troops and reverting to them being called "baby killers" to drive their point or agenda home. As far as I am concerned they have zero credibility.

Gross generalization...and again, in any case, one ignorant person does not represent the movement- just like one immoral soldier does not represent the U.S armed forces.

Originally Posted by BNaylor

Also, don't confuse the anti-war movement with people that are now against the war after the fact. Not the same. Possibly hypocites but they are entitled to change their minds. Even I am against certain actions relating to the war but that is something you would not understand unless you really knew where I was coming from. I look at it from a viewpoint of the welfare of our troops. Your premise of whether there really is an anti-war movement is most likely based on worthless polls or other statistics which do not truly represent the rest of America and many geographical regions.

Feel free to deny the existence of an anti-war movement or explain it away as you choose. To my knowledge there have been many who have spoken out against the war from the beginning. Whether they have been joined by those that have changed their minds after the fact is immaterial. People against the war for whatever reason constitute a "movement". I don't need polls to explain something I see and hear daily. And as far as the voice/pulse of America is concerned, we speak with our vote. Let me again direct your attention to the latest events in the House and Senate.

Originally Posted by BNaylor

I have not seen didly squat. Hiding behind your computer does not count. Funny how the Demos are anti-war when it serves their interests but war mongers otherwise. The protestors during the Viet Nam era were mostly apolitical and hated both the Democrats and Republicans. Today the anti-war movement consists primarily of bleeding heart liberal Democrats (far left). Big difference.

If it suits you to believe the only folks against the war are far left radicals, so be it. People who think as you do are in the deluded minority. You sound bitter.

Originally Posted by BNaylor

Yeah, read Lasnik's statement again not just what you want to read, parse, or comprehend. What he said speaks for itself.

I tend to agree with him. It was your spin that left a bad taste in my mouth.

Originally Posted by BNaylor

I don't play games especially when it deals with our troops. How do you know about that timeframe? Were you there? I was. That movement made a real impact on American society so don't ever sell it short.

Sure it was a powerful era. But it's over. The world changes.

Originally Posted by BNaylor

And the problem you have with Bush is yours not mine. Yeah, that was a real worthless election. Speaking of the House and Senate, what have they done since the Demos became the majority? Their poll ratings are lower than Bush's. And don't count your chickens before they hatch concerning the upcoming 2008 elections. It will take more than luck.

Actually, my problem with Bush is yours. You pay the same inflated price for gas, food and transportation as the rest of us. My national debt is yours. My squandered taxes/ your squandered taxes. My friends in danger/ your sons in danger fighting a war based on lies and vendetta and greed. Be patient with the new government- it's going to take a while to fix Bush's mess. As far as the Presidential election- it might take a few more airport blowjobs, but we'll get there. I feel confident.

Originally Posted by BNaylor

Talk is cheap. At least your friend is serving his country whether good, bad or indifferent. When I was in uniform I respected the President of the U.S. regardless of who he was. A good soldier is not political and respects the Commander-in-Chief and the chain of command. I served under one of the worse Presidents we had...Jimmy Carter and still did my job even though I hated his guts. I have two sons serving our country. One in the Army and one in the Air Force. The fact that Bush is President did not change their minds to join up and serve their country. One of them has already served in Iraq too.

He would be the first to tell you how f*cked up and seemingly futile this war is. Apparently not one of your blindly patriotic fighting robots. More of a free thinker. Soldiers who love the idea of COUNTRY can question the decisions of an incompetent and weak leader. This is patriotism. Otherwise you are just a sheep with a gun...

Originally Posted by BNaylor

The bottom line is no one put a gun to your friend's head. Last time I checked we have a volunteer military. However, his service will never be forgotten and if he becomes a casualty of war (hopefully not) he will not die in vain. But that is something you would never understand. I commend him.

True. But I do struggle with the thought of him dying. I ask myself exactly what he will have died for. Oil? Not seeing any. Iraqi security? Apparently not. WMD eradication? Nope. Stability in the region. Never. Hmmm....? And if fighting a war I find morally reprehensible would make me a man in your estimation, I would still have to decline. My conscience and self respect are far more important to me than your approval.

Originally Posted by BNaylor

From what I see you are blinded by your hatred for Bush.

On the contrary, I am invigorated by my hatred of the man...

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by RSX-S777

Exactly. It is your opinion- and it is the validity of your opinion I am calling into question- or at least the ridiculous conclusion you've reached.

Gross generalization...and again, in any case, one ignorant person does not represent the movement- just like one immoral soldier does not represent the U.S armed forces.

You can call into question my opinion(s) all you want. I really don't care. I'm entitled to them regardless of whether it ruffles your feathers. It is called free speech.

From what I see there are many ignorant persons that represent the movement not just one. Sounds like you are blaming the guy that was punished. At least the Judge had sense enough to question the movement which says alot. I don't see or hear of any apologies from the movement. Using MacBeth as a "Poster Boy" for at least 4 years was inexcuseable.

Originally Posted by RSX-S777

Feel free to deny the existence of an anti-war movement or explain it away as you choose. To my knowledge there have been many who have spoken out against the war from the beginning. Whether they have been joined by those that have changed their minds after the fact is immaterial. People against the war for whatever reason constitute a "movement". I don't need polls to explain something I see and hear daily. And as far as the voice/pulse of America is concerned, we speak with our vote. Let me again direct your attention to the latest events in the House and Senate.

This is interesting. Looks like the movement does not appear to be effective contrary to your misplaced belief. LMAO. Let me direct you to this.

Liberal Anti-War Groups Target Democrats
By Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
September 10, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - With Democrats unable to exert influence over Iraq war policy -- much less bring an end to the four-year conflict -- the liberal anti-war activists who helped Democrats take control of Congress are now turning against them.

Back in January, many of us were excited about the new Democratic Congress and all the progress we could make together," leaders of the liberal MoveOn organization said in an e-mail to members Thursday. "But in some critical areas the Democrats have failed us."

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.a...20070910c.html

Originally Posted by RSX-S777

I tend to agree with him. It was your spin that left a bad taste in my mouth.

He was right on in his criticism of the movement which you are ignoring. Best part is he is a Democrat and nominated by Bill Clinton. And I really don't care what taste is left in your mouth. You are nonsequitur or irrelevant in my life or how I express my opinions which won't change. You are preaching to the choir.

Originally Posted by RSX-S777

He would be the first to tell you how f*cked up and seemingly futile this war is. Apparently not one of your blindly patriotic fighting robots.

More of a free thinker. Soldiers who love the idea of COUNTRY can question the decisions of an incompetent and weak leader. This is patriotism. Otherwise you are just a sheep with a gun...

If he disagrees with an incompetent or weak leader then he can either quit or declare conscientious objector status. But I think you are speaking for yourself not him. You're using him as a crutch. You can "free think" in the military all you want but it doesn't do any good except get you into trouble. If he has been back to Iraq or continuing his military service then he must believe in something which says alot about his character.

Originally Posted by RSX-S777

self exactly what he will have died for. Oil? Not seeing any. Iraqi security? Apparently not. WMD eradication? Nope. Stability in the region. Never. Hmmm....? And if fighting a war I find morally reprehensible would make me a man in your estimation, I would still have to decline. My conscience and self respect are far more important to me than your approval.

On the contrary, I am invigorated by my hatred of the man...

You're entitled to your opinion of the war in Iraq. But it is just an an opinion. It is your conscience that YOU have to live with not me. You don't need my seal of approval. BTW - I sleep like a baby and my conscience is clear. I've paid my dues to this country.

Don't lose too much sleep over Bush. It won't do any good. He'll be with us for the next 15 months or so.

If you desire to continue Bush bashing or the merits/demerits of his presidency then I suggest you open your own thread on the issue.

[BNaylor]

This is old news but even anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan gave up. Just more anecdotal proof of the failure of the anti-war movement, conflicts within the Democratic Party, and the war in Iraq being a more complex issue than many ever imagined.

I have not found anywhere where she refused the SGLI insurance that was paid out by the U.S. Government after her son was killed in action. She probably squandered it all away instead of putting it to good use.

CNN) -- Cindy Sheehan, the California mother who became an anti-war leader after her son was killed in Iraq, declared Monday she was walking away from the peace movement.

But in a Web diary posted to the liberal online community Daily Kos on Monday, Sheehan said she was exhausted by the personal, financial and emotional toll of the past two years.

She wrote that she is disillusioned by the failure of Democratic politicians to bring the unpopular war to an end and tired of a peace movement she said "often puts personal egos above peace and human life."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/28/sheehan/index.html

However, in one of my links the following was pointed out.

Longtime anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, whose son, Army Spec. Casey Sheehan, was killed in Iraq, has announced she will challenge Pelosi for the House seat representing San Francisco in the 2008 elections because of her failure to end the war.

She does have enough money to ever beat Nancy Pelosi.

[03cavPA]

Originally Posted by RSX-S777

In my mind utilizing the computer is far more productive and far reaching than free love and tripping (albeit not as fun).

Not even close. The free love and tripping beats anything the computers can offer. But I digress. You had to be there.

It's been said that the hard core leftist liberals we deal with nowadays are the holdovers of that era, and they've had lot of influence on the political and social climate in this country, flip flopping electorate and all.

As for protesting, nothing beats a good old fashioned full-on street rally, with tear gas, billy clubs, mounted officers, the whole nine yards.

I'm not excessively nostalgic, just tossing a couple of pennies in the ring.

[RSX-S777]

Originally Posted by BNaylor

You can call into question my opinion(s) all you want. I really don't care. I'm entitled to them regardless of whether it ruffles your feathers. It is called free speech.

Originally Posted by BNaylor

If you desire to continue Bush bashing or the merits/demerits of his presidency then I suggest you open your own thread on the issue.

I'd like to point out the irony of your post. Opening by touting the merits of free speech, then closing with a veiled warning. Since when is Bush not implicitly involved when engaged in a debate involving the war? Have moderators been recently bestowed with the authority to censor any relevant topic or information they find personally distasteful? I miss the Flatrater days- we disagreed nearly 100 percent of the time, but he could take as well as he dished out without resorting to manipulating the rules of the game...I respected that.

Originally Posted by BNaylor

From what I see there are many ignorant persons that represent the movement not just one. Sounds like you are blaming the guy that was punished. At least the Judge had sense enough to question the movement which says alot. I don't see or hear of any apologies from the movement. Using MacBeth as a "Poster Boy" for at least 4 years was inexcuseable.

And for a THIRD time, I agree that what this man did was immoral. I agree the leaders of Moveon.org should have done their research. I do NOT agree that the anti-war movement in total is any less valid. The sentiment is real. The goal is one many believe in as strongly as you believe in war. And AGAIN, I won't judge the entire U.S armed forces for the rape, homicides, wrongful deaths and cover ups perpetrated by a minority of individuals if you don't invalidate the anti-war movement as a whole due to the lies of one and the overzealousness of the few.

Originally Posted by BNaylor

This is interesting. Looks like the movement does not appear to be effective contrary to your misplaced belief. LMAO.

On the contrary, anti-war sentiment produced the very results you saw in the House and Senate. Positive steps have been taken toward resolving the issues in Iraq as a result. These steps wouldn't have even been approached had Republicans held on to the majority. At the very least it's a step toward progress and not just more of the same old bullshit. Those who demand faster results are still very active and adaptive. This is not the beginning of the end, it's only the end of the beginning.

Originally Posted by BNaylor

He was right on in his criticism of the movement which you are ignoring. Best part is he is a Democrat and nominated by Bill Clinton. And I really don't care what taste is left in your mouth. You are nonsequitur or irrelevant in my life or how I express my opinions which won't change. You are preaching to the choir.

So angry. You really don't like it when people disagree with you, do you? You said as much when you berated Taranaki. How much fun it was before he came back and dared to challenge your views. The nerve of that guy! Why moderate the very forum where you run the most risk of becoming embroiled in debate? It's so much easier and safer to sit around and agree with those of like mind, but what's the point? Are we here to blow sunshine up each others asses or argue politics?

Originally Posted by BNaylor

If he disagrees with an incompetent or weak leader then he can either quit or declare conscientious objector status. But I think you are speaking for yourself not him. You're using him as a crutch. You can "free think" in the military all you want but it doesn't do any good except get you into trouble. If he has been back to Iraq or continuing his military service then he must believe in something which says alot about his character.

Soldiers questioning an unjust war is really nothing new. You mentioned the sixties. What better example? What my friend DOES believe in erasing his college debt. Sure he loves his country as we all do, but when his service period ends, he is out. He disagrees with a war that began after his enlistment. Not everything is black and white. In your world every soldier and every American is required to display blind allegiance at the risk of being labeled a traitor. This is an unrealistic dream and an unfair expectation.

Originally Posted by BNaylor

You're entitled to your opinion of the war in Iraq. But it is just an an opinion. It is your conscience that YOU have to live with not me. You don't need my seal of approval. BTW - I sleep like a baby and my conscience is clear. I've paid my dues to this country.

Is it your assertion that the only citizens worth a damn are those who enlist in the military? I'm sorry my skills and my taxes and my education are nullified unless I pick up a gun and go kill me someone...

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by RSX-S777

I'd like to point out the irony of your post. Opening by touting the merits of free speech, then closing with a veiled warning. Since when is Bush not implicitly involved when engaged in a debate involving the war? Have moderators been recently bestowed with the authority to censor any relevant topic or information they find personally distasteful? I miss the Flatrater days- we disagreed nearly 100 percent of the time, but he could take as well as he dished out without resorting to manipulating the rules of the game...I respected that.

As I pointed out earlier you have taken this matter way too personal. To start I am the OP of the thread and the fact I am a Moderator has nothing to do with my post or you derailing the thread with your rants. Your perception of what I said is way off base. There was no veiled warning. Just a simple request to move on because you've beaten the Bush issue to death here and in the past. If I were to put on my Moderator hat which is highly unlikely in this forum then it would have been a clear, easy to understand unveiled warning.

Originally Posted by bnaylor

If you desire to continue Bush bashing or the merits/demerits of his presidency then I suggest you open your own thread on the issue.

Originally Posted by RSX-S777

On the contrary, anti-war sentiment produced the very results you saw in the House and Senate. Positive steps have been taken toward resolving the issues in Iraq as a result. These steps wouldn't have even been approached had Republicans held on to the majority. At the very least it's a step toward progress and not just more of the same old bullshit. Those who demand faster results are still very active and adaptive. This is not the beginning of the end, it's only the end of the beginning.

Dream on. Only in your imagination. Any progress or positive steps in Iraq will be due to the hard work of our military led by General Petraeus not the politicians or your anti-war movement. They are doing a fine job over there considering the circumstances and will accomplish the mission. The military has improved and totally revised training before troops are deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Planning that was all part of the troop surge. That includes a refresher on ethics, morals, the rules of engagement (ROE), area security ops and urban ops, etc. If you'd like to hear more about it I'd be glad to explain more in depth since I have relevant, first hand knowledge of it. Not too many people get a chance to be an official Iraqi Insurgent, i.e. OPFOR - Opposing Forces a few days a week within the continental United States. Alot of us give back to this country one way or another without being selfish and even set aside politics to get the job done.

Originally Posted by RSX-S777

So angry. You really don't like it when people disagree with you, do you? You said as much when you berated Taranaki. How much fun it was before he came back and dared to challenge your views. The nerve of that guy! Why moderate the very forum where you run the most risk of becoming embroiled in debate? It's so much easier and safer to sit around and agree with those of like mind, but what's the point? Are we here to blow sunshine up each others asses or argue politics?

Go ahead lash out if it makes you feel better. Another misplaced argument. Last time I checked no one moderates this forum and wide lattitude is given so the garbage stays out of the tech forums. I berated Taranaki? That is a laugh? Your buddy Taranaki berated himself and others. Debating is fine until it becomes childish ala Taranaki.

Originally Posted by RSX-S777

Soldiers questioning an unjust war is really nothing new. You mentioned the sixties. What better example? What my friend DOES believe in erasing his college debt. Sure he loves his country as we all do, but when his service period ends, he is out. He disagrees with a war that began after his enlistment. Not everything is black and white. In your world every soldier and every American is required to display blind allegiance at the risk of being labeled a traitor. This is an unrealistic dream and an unfair expectation.

That sounds like your friend's personal problem to me. The worse thing anyone can do is join any branch of our armed forces just to pay for a college education or to erase college debt. You know some day you may have to go to war whether you agree with it or not. That was a bad move. But I wish him luck in his decision.

Originally Posted by RSX-S777

Is it your assertion that the only citizens worth a damn are those who enlist in the military? I'm sorry my skills and my taxes and my education are nullified unless I pick up a gun and go kill me someone...

Sounds like your assertion to me. What.... are you feeling left out.

[03cavPA]

This is the way to stage a proper protest:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298580,00.html

Pakistani Lawyer Clash With Riot Police Over Musharraf Nomination

Saturday, September 29, 2007


ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Riot police fired tear gas and used batons on protesting lawyers as Pakistan's Election Commission rejected objections to President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's re-election bid Saturday.
.................................................
Scenes of chaos ensued on barricaded Constitution Avenue, with security forces and protesters pelting each other with rocks. Police fired tear gas shells and beat the protesters, with at least one officer using a tree branch. An AP reporter saw two lawyers with head injuries.......................................... ......

Pakistani lawyers FTW.

[BNaylor]

There is a right way and a wrong to do things especially concerning the so called anti-war movement. This one backfired on Moveon.org.

Just more anecdotal proof the movement is losing support and credibility.

Senate Passes Amendment supporting General Petraeus and U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq and Repudiating the Attack on General Petraeus by MoveOn.org
September 20, 2007

Today the U.S. Senate approved by a vote of 72 – 25 (3 not voting) an amendment by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 expressing the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

General David Petraeus and our troops in Iraq

Senate Amendment 2934, Mr. CORNYN

SEC. 1070. SENSE OF SENATE ON GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:

(1) The Senate unanimously confirmed General David H. Petraeus as Commanding
General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, by a vote of 81-0 on January 26, 2007.

(2) General Petraeus graduated first in his class at the United States Army Command and General Staff College.

(3) General Petraeus earned Masters of Public Administration and Doctoral degrees in international relations from Princeton University.

(4) General Petraeus has served multiple combat tours in Iraq, including command of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) during combat operations throughout the first year of Operation Iraqi Freedom, which tours included both major combat operations and subsequent stability and support operations.

(5) General Petraeus supervised the development and crafting of the United States Army and Marine Corps counterinsurgency manual based in large measure on his combat experience in Iraq, scholarly study, and other professional experiences.

(6) General Petraeus has taken a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

(7) During his 35-year career, General Petraeus has amassed a distinguished and unvarnished record of military service to the United States as recognized by his receipt of a Defense Distinguished Service Medal, two Distinguished Service Medals, two Defense Superior Service Medals, four Legions of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal for valor, the State Department Superior Honor Award, the NATO Meritorious Service Medal, and other awards and medals.

(8) A recent attack through a full-page advertisement in the New York Times by the liberal activist group, Moveon.org, impugns the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces.

(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq;

(2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces; and

(3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org.

How they voted:

Shockingly 25 Democrats voted AGAINST the Cornyn Amendment supporting General Petraeus and our troops and repudiating MoveOn.org for its despicable attack on the General’s personal integrity and honor. Among the Senators voting against the Cornyn amendment (i.e. voting in favor of MoveOn.org assertion that General Petraeus is guilty of lying and treason) were Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Byrd (D-WV), Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-IL), Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI), 2004 Democratic Party Presidential Candidate Senator John Kerry (D-MA), 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary Candidate Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) and 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary Candidate Senator Hillary Clinton.

Choosing not to cast a vote on the Cornyn Amendment were 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary Candidates Senators Joe Biden (D-DE) and Barack Obama (D-IL).

House votes to condemn MoveOn's 'Betray Us' ad
USA Today, 9/26/07

By a 341-79 vote, with all "nays" being Democrats, the House this afternoon passed a resolution condemning MoveOn.org Political Action's "General Betray Us" ad and praising the patriotism of Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq and the subject of the liberal group's recent full-page ad in The New York Times. A similar resolution passed the Senate last week.

[blazee]

^^ That's a bunch of bullshit. All that time wasted debating over something so f*cking stupid, just to come up with a "we all agree, that we don't like it". Just further demonstrates some of the waste in the government and that the tax payers are are not getting what they pay for. Must be nice to sit around all day doing nothing, and giving yourself raises. If one of my employees were as worthless as the government, I'd have fired them long ago. They're making too much money for too little effort. Their pay should be cut in half, or taken away completely and then let them be compensated on a per job basis, pay them everytime something gets accomplished. These are supposed to be leaders, but they run out of buildings screaming like little pussies at the sight of a Cessna, publicly denounce gays and child molesters, but privately suck off little boys while jerking off, and looking at kiddy porn. What happened to the days of strong leaders with strong morals, who actually got shit done?