"G-Ride" <gride42nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3gs4h1Fe83nrU2@individual.net:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1118359141.a98fe3c705e710de5282b7ebf1dd4817@teranews...

"G-Ride" <gride42nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3grsdjFdqlrmU2@individual.net:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1118351429.27e7c7e182509840fc37ad9683221e96@teranews...

"G-Ride" <gride42nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3grhoqFe0igoU2@individual.net:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1118285967.669a00a20dceb22ee56b8813cd3d1216@teranews...

"G-Ride" <gride42nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3gpaibFdm95kU2@individual.net:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1118268489.cb17496fa32584e691e14fef1b0d83c6@teranews...

"G-Ride" <gride42nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3gp5m9FdjjhuU2@individual.net:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message

news:1118263437.566e45f7dc53de7878336f674f74ff1e@teranews..

.

"G-Ride" <gride42nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3gp1l2Fdl9upU2@individual.net:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1118238207.da5f3158efd7b7880307a5cd5628c050

@teranews..

.

"Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote in
news:o3Cpe.5389$jS3.1713@newsfe2-win.ntli.net:

"Sean C" <redhawk@burnspammersalive.com> wrote in
message
news:080620050012534302%

redhawk@burnspammersalive.com...

In article
<1118191273.13bc855b6fa94b10971e1f2e1dfda611

@teranews>,

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/06/horrible-

chil

d-

abus

e-

i

n-

iraq.html

Warning. Graphic photo.

That's a Japanese soldier. They are not involved in
combat operations.

And a live child, too. Unlike the tens of thousands
of newly dead ones.

Most of whom have been killed by the "insurgents".

I must say this has certainly brought out the people
who "support our troops".

Thus sayeth Fred "you can only support the troops if
you support the decision to send them to war" Stone.

Here's a couple questions for you Fred:

Are there cases in which you wouldn't support the
troops? (You've stated previously the only way to
support the troops is to support the reason they are
sent to war. Fred Stone: "you can't support the troops
if you don't support the mission")

If your answer is yes, why do you criticize those who
don't support the decision to use military force in
Iraq as being unsupportive of the troops?

Because the mission in Iraq should not be abandoned now,
no matter whether you approved of the original decision
or not.

I said nothing about abandoning Iraq. This is simply a
question of supporting a decision to go to war.

Then you're not even talking about the mission in Iraq.
Why should I listen to you rattling on about hypotheticals?

I am talking about the mission in Iraq. I said nothing about
abandoning Iraq, however.

Then you *do* support the current mission.

I don't support the war in Iraq. It was a fool's mission and
was completely unneccessary, and it has and continues to cost us
dearly in blood and treasure. That doesn't mean, however, that
I think we can simply pack up and leave just yet. You hero bush
has fucked things up too much for us to be able to do that.

That is compatible with support for the *current* mission.

So why have you criticized me for not supporting the troops?

Because you didn't make it clear that you do support the current
mission.

I'd say it is because you're an idiot.

Now you resort to insults as your hypocrisy and your equivocal
rationalizations are exposed.

Since your answer is yes to the question of whether there
could be cases in which you wouldn't support the troops,
why is it ok for you to "not support the troops" (based
upon your definition) in some situations, but it is not ok
for others to "not support the troops" (again, based on
your definition) in other situations?

Tell me about the specific real life situation and I'll tell
you whether I think they should support it or not.

Why are you avoiding the question Fred?

You already indicated that there are cases in which you
wouldn't "support the troops" (based upon your definition).
Why is it ok for you to "not support the troops", but it
isn't ok for others to "not support the troops"?

Why are *YOU* avoiding the question, G-Ride? Your hypothetical
is too open-ended. You tell me the real life specific situation
and I'll tell you whether I think they should support it or
not.

I don't need to answer your silly diversionary attempts, Fred.
You already answered yes to the hypothetical. Why do you
continue to avoid answering my follow-up question? I want to
know why you think it is ok for you to "not support the troops",
but you don't think it is ok for others to "not support the
troops"? Why do you criticize others for doing something that
you yourself have stated that you would do?

Because my criticism depends upon their specific reasons for
opposing the mission, and the particulars of their choices of the
missions that they refuse to support. Why do you suppose that I'm
asking you for specifics?

You're still just avoiding the question, Fred.

I have answered your vague hypothetical questions. You're just
avoiding the specifics of the situation.

I told you to assume the same specifics that led to your answer of
"yes" to the question of whether there were cases in which you
wouldn't "support the troops".

I'm not interested in your hypotheticals under any assumptions.

You've stated that
there could be cases in which you wouldn't support the troops
because you don't su pport the mission. It is reasonable to assume
that your answer of "yes" is because of some beliefs, convictions
or whatever, that you happen to hold and believe to be true.
People that oppose the war in Iraq do so because of beliefs,
convictions, or whatever that they believe to be true as well. You
may not agree, but they're opinions are just as valid as your own.

I do not necesarily subscribe to that sort of moral equivalency. I
reserve the right to disagree with their opinions and to disapprove
of their decisions.

For the sake of our
hypothetical exercise here, assume that the specifics are the same
as what caused you to answer yes to the question of whether there
could be a case in which you didn't support the troops.

So I ask yet again:

You can ask all you want. I have given you my answer. If that is not
good enough for you, that is your problem, not mine.

So you're just a hypocrite that reserves the right to dissent only for
himself, but not for others that disagree with him.

I don't care whether they disagree with me or not.

If it is possible for you to oppose a war for any
reason of your choosing(and thus not support the troops sent to
fight that war according to your definition), why do you criticize
others for doing the same by saying they "don't support the
troops"?

Your "unsupportive of the troops" criticisms are sophmoric and
meaningless displays, Fred. Your continued refusal to answer the
simple question above is making that ever the more apparent.

Your vague hypotheticals are the sophomoric displays, G-Ride. You
just can't stand the idea that someone might disapprove of your
opinions, and you use false moral equivocation to justify your
juvenile and irresponsible behavior.

lol, Fred. You are a fucking piece of work. I have no problem with
someone disapproving of my opinion.

Neither do I.

I just ask them to do it
rationally and not resort to simpleton sophomoric cries of "you're
unsupportive of the troops!" If you choose to go around tossing out
such remarks, don't be surprised when someone asks you to explain why
you choose to make such statements.

If you're going to demand explanations, don't be surprised when someone
asks you to be uneqivocal about what it is that you're asking about.

By your continued evasion and
refusal to answer, it is obvious that you indeed have no clue why you
say the things you do. That is juvenile and irresponsible behaviour
Fred. Asking someone to explain themselves, as I have done, is not.

It's clear to me that you just don't like to hear rational criticism so
you resort to sophomoric hypothetical equivocation and other rhetorical
tactics in response.

You want to reserve rights for yourself that you refuse to grant to
others,

Their rights are theirs whether I grant them or not. I *still* don't
have to approve of what they do or why they do it.

and you think of yourself as some kind of grand arbitor of
what is and isn't proper dissent. You're an arrogant fool, Fred. As
I've said before, you would have made a good and loyal German back in
the '30s and '40s, Fred.

Ah, now we get down to it. You appoint *yourself* as the grand arbiter
of dissent and you resent anyone who calls you the traitor that you are.

By the way, when a