Criticizing the Bush Administration for it's handling of the fight
against terrorism and it's reasons for invading Iraq and it's handling
of that post-invasion situation (as well as the situation in
Afghanistan) is considered to be 'defeatist', or worse 'aiding and
abetting the terrorists'.
Afghanistan is battling a resurgent Taliban and NATO forces there are
calling for more troops, Iraq is experiencing an ever increasing level
of violence, Bin Laden is still unaccounted for, intelligent reports
are saying terrorism is worse now then it was 5 years ago. So in order
to be 'non-defeatist' and 'non-aiding and non-abiding' we're all
supposed to say 'We're winning'?
If you criticize, you are the enemy.
U.S.A -- R.I.P.
The founders of your country must have rolled over in their graves when
Bush's detainment and treatment legislation was passed this week. A
dark day, indeed.
Cheers!
-- Marvie
.
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Fighting Defeatism |
29 Sep 2006 09:49:45 AM |
|
|
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
U.S.A -- R.I.P.
The founders of your country must have rolled over in their graves when
Bush's detainment and treatment legislation was passed this week. A
dark day, indeed.
Prisoners of War have always been held for the duration of a war
without the benefit of trial. Why is it suddenly different for this
war? And please don't speak for the founders of my country. You're
starting to annoy me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Fighting Defeatism |
29 Sep 2006 04:55:35 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 07:49:45 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
U.S.A -- R.I.P.
The founders of your country must have rolled over in their graves when
Bush's detainment and treatment legislation was passed this week. A
dark day, indeed.
Prisoners of War have always been held for the duration of a war
without the benefit of trial. Why is it suddenly different for this
war? And please don't speak for the founders of my country. You're
starting to annoy me.
Bush made it different for this war by having secret prisons to which the
Red Cross does not have access. Bush also made it different by not
coughing up the names of detainees so that families could be notified.
Bush also made it different by kidnapping people off the street who may
or MAY NOT have anything to do with insurgency. Bush also made it
different by kidnapping *family members* of people he's wanted detained.
There's more, but what would be the point of listing them - your head is
buried so far in the sand that it's pointless.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Fighting Defeatism |
29 Sep 2006 05:09:18 PM |
|
|
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.09.29.21.55.35.290433@tepidmail.com...
There's more, but what would be the point of listing them - your head is
buried so far in the sand that it's pointless.
Woods
Uhoh, I feel consensus growing here. :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
|
| Title: Re: Fighting Defeatism |
29 Sep 2006 09:59:35 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
U.S.A -- R.I.P.
The founders of your country must have rolled over in their graves when
Bush's detainment and treatment legislation was passed this week. A
dark day, indeed.
Prisoners of War have always been held for the duration of a war
without the benefit of trial. Why is it suddenly different for this
war? And please don't speak for the founders of my country. You're
starting to annoy me.
The definition of 'prisoner' is in flux, and the only one allowed to
define it is Bush.
Aaaand -- why would I annoy you? Because usenet allows for freedom of
expression? If you find that bothersome then request a moderated NG
where you become the moderator.
Indefinite detention and redefining Article 3 of the Geneva Convention
I would say is reason for serious concern and goes against the spirit
upon which your country was founded.
Cheers!
-- Marvie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Werewolfy" |
|
| Title: Re: Fighting Defeatism |
29 Sep 2006 10:18:32 AM |
|
|
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Indefinite detention and redefining Article 3 of the Geneva Convention
I would say is reason for serious concern
Don't worry Marv. The world agrees with you, I agree with you
Don't ever forget, Steven, The USA attacked Afghanistan. Those
'prisoners' are simply people defending their Country.
The USA has also attacked and conquered Iraq. Rumours abound that Iran
will be next, even Pakistan might be 'bombed back into the Stone Age'
if it doesn't help the mighty USA.
The historical comparison of ideaology is on a frighteningly similar
par to that of the Roman Empire in it's decline.
You need to be worried. Your Country has become a monster.
Werewolfy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Fighting Defeatism |
29 Sep 2006 04:47:02 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:18:32 -0700, Werewolfy wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Indefinite detention and redefining Article 3 of the Geneva Convention
I would say is reason for serious concern
Don't worry Marv. The world agrees with you, I agree with you
Don't ever forget, Steven, The USA attacked Afghanistan. Those
'prisoners' are simply people defending their Country.
The USA has also attacked and conquered Iraq. Rumours abound that Iran
will be next, even Pakistan might be 'bombed back into the Stone Age'
if it doesn't help the mighty USA.
The historical comparison of ideaology is on a frighteningly similar
par to that of the Roman Empire in it's decline.
You need to be worried. Your Country has become a monster.
The only people who don't see that are the people who pay lip service to
"loving" America. It's like being in the Twilight Zone. :-P~
Woods
Werewolfy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Werewolfy" |
|
| Title: Re: Fighting Defeatism |
29 Sep 2006 04:53:25 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
The only people who don't see that are the people who pay lip service to
"loving" America. It's like being in the Twilight Zone. :-P~
Woodsy!
You've 'done it' now! Every time I read one of Steven's posts, I will
hear that eerie music and the distinctive voice of the introduction to
'The Twilight Zone'. ;)
Werewolfy
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Fighting Defeatism |
29 Sep 2006 10:33:56 AM |
|
|
Werewolfy wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Indefinite detention and redefining Article 3 of the Geneva Convention
I would say is reason for serious concern
Don't worry Marv. The world agrees with you, I agree with you
Don't ever forget, Steven, The USA attacked Afghanistan. Those
'prisoners' are simply people defending their Country.
The USA (and allies) attacked France while it was occupied by Germany,
too. And prisoners were captured and held for the duration of the war.
The attack you mention on Afghanistan was a response (by the USA and
allies) to the Taliban for refusing to turnover the Al Qaeda who had
attacked the United States. In war, prisoners are captured and held for
the duration of the war.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Werewolfy" |
|
| Title: Re: Fighting Defeatism |
29 Sep 2006 10:50:32 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
The USA (and allies) attacked France while it was occupied by Germany,
too. And prisoners were captured and held for the duration of the war.
No No No. Rubbish. Allied Forces liberated France from the German
invaders
..
The attack you mention on Afghanistan was a response (by the USA and
allies) to the Taliban for refusing to turnover the Al Qaeda who had
attacked the United States. In war, prisoners are captured and held for
the duration of the war.
Who said Afghanistan was a stronghold for the terrorist who caused
carnage on 11/9? Even if it were, your fight was with those military
who caused your losses.
Having secured the Country, found no trace of the man you wished to
arrest, why are you still there? Thousand, countless thousands of
civilians have died at your Godly hands.
Sleep well.
Werewolfy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Fighting Defeatism |
29 Sep 2006 10:55:59 AM |
|
|
Werewolfy wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
The USA (and allies) attacked France while it was occupied by Germany,
too. And prisoners were captured and held for the duration of the war.
No No No. Rubbish. Allied Forces liberated France from the German
invaders
Look above at my reply -- I said "...USA (and allies)..." And in
Afghanistan, it is also USA and allies.
.
The attack you mention on Afghanistan was a response (by the USA and
allies) to the Taliban for refusing to turnover the Al Qaeda who had
attacked the United States. In war, prisoners are captured and held for
the duration of the war.
Who said Afghanistan was a stronghold for the terrorist who caused
carnage on 11/9? Even if it were, your fight was with those military
who caused your losses.
That's right. The Taliban was harboring Al Qadea in Afghanistan, and
refused to turn them over. So the USA AND ALLIES attacked the Taliban
to root out the Al Qaeda they were harboring.
Having secured the Country, found no trace of the man you wished to
arrest, why are you still there?
What's this "you" stuff? There is a NATO force there. *You* are there,
too.
Thousand, countless thousands of
civilians have died at your Godly hands.
And yours.
Sleep well.
Same for you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Werewolfy" |
|
| Title: Re: Fighting Defeatism |
29 Sep 2006 10:59:55 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
What's this "you" stuff? There is a NATO force there. *You* are there,
too.
I don't care who is there. I don't care if Martians are occupying the
Country. The fact is, it should not be so.
Werewolfy
.
|
|
|
| User: "mukyuk" |
|
| Title: Re: Fighting Defeatism |
29 Sep 2006 02:31:01 PM |
|
|
"Werewolfy" <thegrimreaper10@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1159545595.493734.241570@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Steven Douglas wrote:
What's this "you" stuff? There is a NATO force there. *You* are there,
too.
I don't care who is there. I don't care if Martians are occupying the
Country. The fact is, it should not be so.
I like how you can confront Steven and still be on relatively good terms
with him. That's something I've never been able (or willing) to do...
Werewolfy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Werewolfy" |
|
| Title: Re: Fighting Defeatism |
29 Sep 2006 04:46:05 PM |
|
|
mukyuk wrote:
I like how you can confront Steven and still be on relatively good terms
with him. That's something I've never been able (or willing) to do...
Heya Mondo. I think it's the tablets that help a lot there ;)
Odd, isn't it. Sometimes we jump to a conclusion about someone, but as
time passes, realise just how wrong you were. Well, I do anyway.
Oh...I don't mean Steven now. I doubt that I could ever find common
ground in that direction. No, I've become quite a fan of your posts.
Many times you remind me of...well, you remind me of myself ;)
It's...refreshing...to know you.
Werewolfy
.
|
|
|
| User: "mukyuk" |
|
| Title: Re: Fighting Defeatism |
29 Sep 2006 06:30:25 PM |
|
|
"Werewolfy" <Werewolfy1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1159566365.439679.132000@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
mukyuk wrote:
I like how you can confront Steven and still be on relatively good terms
with him. That's something I've never been able (or willing) to do...
Heya Mondo. I think it's the tablets that help a lot there ;)
Odd, isn't it. Sometimes we jump to a conclusion about someone, but as
time passes, realise just how wrong you were. Well, I do anyway.
Oh...I don't mean Steven now. I doubt that I could ever find common
ground in that direction. No, I've become quite a fan of your posts.
Many times you remind me of...well, you remind me of myself ;)
It's...refreshing...to know you.
Thanks for your nice words
Werewolfy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Fighting Defeatism |
29 Sep 2006 10:23:51 AM |
|
|
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
U.S.A -- R.I.P.
The founders of your country must have rolled over in their graves when
Bush's detainment and treatment legislation was passed this week. A
dark day, indeed.
Prisoners of War have always been held for the duration of a war
without the benefit of trial. Why is it suddenly different for this
war? And please don't speak for the founders of my country. You're
starting to annoy me.
The definition of 'prisoner' is in flux, and the only one allowed to
define it is Bush.
No, Congress and the Supreme Court have a say in it as well.
Aaaand -- why would I annoy you? Because usenet allows for freedom of
expression?
No, I'm here because I enjoy the free exchange of opinions and ideas.
Many people annoy me on usenet, and for the most part up to now, you
haven't been one of them.
If you find that bothersome then request a moderated NG
where you become the moderator.
That's a statement more appropriately given to Lemke, since he has no
tolerance for opinions that differ from his own (other than just minor
differences he may have with some of his fellow leftists).
Indefinite detention and redefining Article 3 of the Geneva Convention
I would say is reason for serious concern and goes against the spirit
upon which your country was founded.
I don't agree that anything was redefined -- the interrogators asked
for claification on some points. And if ONLY the terrorists would have
treated our captured troops the way we treat detainees!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
|
| Title: Re: Fighting Defeatism |
29 Sep 2006 12:44:00 PM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
U.S.A -- R.I.P.
The founders of your country must have rolled over in their graves when
Bush's detainment and treatment legislation was passed this week. A
dark day, indeed.
Prisoners of War have always been held for the duration of a war
without the benefit of trial. Why is it suddenly different for this
war? And please don't speak for the founders of my country. You're
starting to annoy me.
The definition of 'prisoner' is in flux, and the only one allowed to
define it is Bush.
No, Congress and the Supreme Court have a say in it as well.
When the Executive controls the Legislative to counter the opinion and
decisions of the Judicial I'd say you have a problem. Congress is not
acting as a check or a balance -- the executive is using it as a
billy-club to beat down the courts who rule against it.
Aaaand -- why would I annoy you? Because usenet allows for freedom of
expression?
No, I'm here because I enjoy the free exchange of opinions and ideas.
Many people annoy me on usenet, and for the most part up to now, you
haven't been one of them.
I apologize, the post was not intended for you specifically since it
was the originating post in this thread and I didn't mention you
specifically in the subject heading or the body.
However, it *is* my opinion based on an uneasy feeling I have in my
conscience about the current occupant residing in the White House. This
Administration has been given a complete pass -- there has been little
to no legislative oversight of the Iraq War (profiteering, torture) and
no oversight at all as to the overall conduct of the fight against
terrorism.
Personally, I enjoy your posts, replies and general ability to argue
and contest points.
If you find that bothersome then request a moderated NG
where you become the moderator.
That's a statement more appropriately given to Lemke, since he has no
tolerance for opinions that differ from his own (other than just minor
differences he may have with some of his fellow leftists).
The 'annoy me' response I found out of character for you.
Indefinite detention and redefining Article 3 of the Geneva Convention
I would say is reason for serious concern and goes against the spirit
upon which your country was founded.
I don't agree that anything was redefined -- the interrogators asked
for claification on some points. And if ONLY the terrorists would have
treated our captured troops the way we treat detainees!
Is there anything in writing from any intelligence agency requesting
such clarification? Who's deciding what specifics of Art. 3 of the G.C.
are being clarified and how they are being changed and when or will the
public ever know of these changes? The general impression given by the
media is that this legislation was so rushed that the majority of
lawmakers had no idea what they were exactly voting on. It's a disgrace
to the idea of checks and balances and to the integrity of the U.S.
Bush is an odd breed of Christian when he needs torture clarified. My
gut tells me he's protecting himself retroactively from being
prosecuted under your own war crimes laws.
Again, this is all just my opinion as an outsider looking in.
Cheers!
-- Marvie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Fighting Defeatism |
29 Sep 2006 09:13:25 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Marvin The Paranoid Android"
<marvinparanoidandroid@hotmail.com> Spat the Words
However, it *is* my opinion based on an uneasy feeling I have in my
conscience about the current occupant residing in the White House. This
Administration has been given a complete pass -- there has been little
to no legislative oversight of the Iraq War (profiteering, torture) and
no oversight at all as to the overall conduct of the fight against
terrorism.
This usually happens here in times of war. The US Executive is
given nearly unlimited free-reign to do what needs to be done, and
our Congress rolls over and plays the willing helper to the Executive
during times like these.
Only problem is that right now we're not really at war. It's a
sham. There's a handful of really bad people out there, extremists,
who should be hunted down and taken. This is why everything seems
so off right now. Bush is being given almost unlimited authority,
but there are hardly any enemies, and he's using that authority
to just ***** people off and create real enemies.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Fighting Defeatism |
29 Sep 2006 01:07:07 PM |
|
|
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
U.S.A -- R.I.P.
The founders of your country must have rolled over in their graves when
Bush's detainment and treatment legislation was passed this week. A
dark day, indeed.
Prisoners of War have always been held for the duration of a war
without the benefit of trial. Why is it suddenly different for this
war? And please don't speak for the founders of my country. You're
starting to annoy me.
The definition of 'prisoner' is in flux, and the only one allowed to
define it is Bush.
No, Congress and the Supreme Court have a say in it as well.
When the Executive controls the Legislative to counter the opinion and
decisions of the Judicial I'd say you have a problem. Congress is not
acting as a check or a balance -- the executive is using it as a
billy-club to beat down the courts who rule against it.
It is the job of the courts to interpret law. The three branches of
government are coequal. One does not have more power than another. If
the courts interpret a law, it is the right of the other branches to
pass a different law -- as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution.
If the new law violates the Constitution, the courts will strike it
down. It happens all the time.
Aaaand -- why would I annoy you? Because usenet allows for freedom of
expression?
No, I'm here because I enjoy the free exchange of opinions and ideas.
Many people annoy me on usenet, and for the most part up to now, you
haven't been one of them.
I apologize, the post was not intended for you specifically since it
was the originating post in this thread and I didn't mention you
specifically in the subject heading or the body.
I realize it was not meant for me specifically. It was the way you
presumed to speak for the founding fathers, as if they spoke with one
voice anyway. I'm sure some would have agreed with the liberals, and
some would have agreed with the conservatives. Because they had those
kinds of arguments among themselves routinely.
However, it *is* my opinion based on an uneasy feeling I have in my
conscience about the current occupant residing in the White House. This
Administration has been given a complete pass -- there has been little
to no legislative oversight of the Iraq War (profiteering, torture) and
no oversight at all as to the overall conduct of the fight against
terrorism.
Did you complain about Haliburton while Clinton was President? And the
"torture" thing is overblown in my opinion. I don't advocate torture,
but I don't consider stress positions to be torture in the sense of the
kinds of *real* torture that Saddam perpetrated on his people
(including children while parents were forced to watch).
Personally, I enjoy your posts, replies and general ability to argue
and contest points.
Thanks, and most of the time (with rare exceptions) I feel the same
about your posts.
If you find that bothersome then request a moderated NG
where you become the moderator.
That's a statement more appropriately given to Lemke, since he has no
tolerance for opinions that differ from his own (other than just minor
differences he may have with some of his fellow leftists).
The 'annoy me' response I found out of character for you.
I said you were "starting" to annoy me. It's gone now anyway, so forget
it.
Indefinite detention and redefining Article 3 of the Geneva Convention
I would say is reason for serious concern and goes against the spirit
upon which your country was founded.
I don't agree that anything was redefined -- the interrogators asked
for claification on some points. And if ONLY the terrorists would have
treated our captured troops the way we treat detainees!
Is there anything in writing from any intelligence agency requesting
such clarification?
Probably, though I doubt that it's going to be made public -- unless
someone illegally leaks it. I've heard commentators say the
interrogators were unsure how far they could go (as far as stress
positions, etc.) without becoming legally culpable if they crossed some
line that wasn't clearly defined. So they asked for clarification
Who's deciding what specifics of Art. 3 of the G.C.
are being clarified and how they are being changed and when or will the
public ever know of these changes?
The Geneve Convention is not specific in what constitutes "treatment"
of prisoners. One thing the new bill outlaws, I believe, is
waterboarding.
The general impression given by the
media is that this legislation was so rushed that the majority of
lawmakers had no idea what they were exactly voting on. It's a disgrace
to the idea of checks and balances and to the integrity of the U.S.
We do have a Democratic Party, and its leaders are free to express
their feelings. If the public decides they are right, they can take
over Congress in a few weeks.
Bush is an odd breed of Christian when he needs torture clarified.
It's not torture. You're diminishing the actual meaning of the word to
confuse the treatment of detainees with torture.
My gut tells me he's protecting himself retroactively from being
prosecuted under your own war crimes laws.
What war crimes laws do you think he's broken?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Werewolfy" |
|
| Title: Re: Fighting Defeatism |
29 Sep 2006 10:43:22 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
And if ONLY the terrorists would have treated our captured troops the
way we treat detainees!
Yes, a fine example of 'treatment'. Thank God they don't take them all
away, half-way around the world and imprison them without either trial
or legal representation. Oh, of course you do everything so well, not
just freedom fighters, but anyone who has the smallest shred of
suspicion hanging over them are locked away. Locked away and treated in
an inhumane and illegal manner.
Your land of democracy has disintegrated into a Country so self
obsessed, that any action justifies the end. If a few thousand innocent
people suffer, so what? We are America, and we are the Gretest Nation
on Earth.
You are also bullies and will take any action to get what you want from
the world.
Werewolfy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Fighting Defeatism |
29 Sep 2006 10:48:39 AM |
|
|
Werewolfy wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
And if ONLY the terrorists would have treated our captured troops the
way we treat detainees!
Yes, a fine example of 'treatment'. Thank God they don't take them all
away, half-way around the world and imprison them without either trial
or legal representation.
We did that with German POWs during WWII. Would you have objected to
that? We kept German POWs in prisons out in the middle of the desert in
New Mexico and Arizona, among other places. That's pretty far from
Germany. And all they were doing was defending their country! And we
took them all the way, half-way around the world and imprisoned them
without either trial or legal representation. Odd that I don't remember
the world crying out about that the way it seems to be today.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Werewolfy" |
|
| Title: Re: Fighting Defeatism |
29 Sep 2006 10:56:04 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Werewolfy wrote:
We did that with German POWs during WWII. Would you have objected to
that? We kept German POWs in prisons out in the middle of the desert in
New Mexico and Arizona, among other places. That's pretty far from
Germany. And all they were doing was defending their country! And we
took them all the way, half-way around the world and imprisoned them
without either trial or legal representation. Odd that I don't remember
the world crying out about that the way it seems to be today.
There is no comparison. In WW2, soldiers were held as prisoners of war.
Now, you detain anyone who you take a dislike to, lock them away and
try to justify it.
You are supposed to be a 'Godly' man. Put yourself in the place of any
one of the many innocent people incarcerated. Why are you defending
what is an affront to decent Society? You should be praying for them
all.
Werewolfy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Fighting Defeatism |
29 Sep 2006 11:01:09 AM |
|
|
Werewolfy wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Werewolfy wrote:
We did that with German POWs during WWII. Would you have objected to
that? We kept German POWs in prisons out in the middle of the desert in
New Mexico and Arizona, among other places. That's pretty far from
Germany. And all they were doing was defending their country! And we
took them all the way, half-way around the world and imprisoned them
without either trial or legal representation. Odd that I don't remember
the world crying out about that the way it seems to be today.
There is no comparison. In WW2, soldiers were held as prisoners of war.
Oh I see. So you're saying there's a difference between uniformed
soldiers and illegal combatants? Please explain the difference under
the Geneva Convention.
Now, you detain anyone who you take a dislike to, lock them away and
try to justify it.
All the detainees at Guantanamo have hearings, and many have been
released back to their nation of origin. Some don't want to go back,
because they know they will be treated worse there than they were at
Guantanamo.
You are supposed to be a 'Godly' man. Put yourself in the place of any
one of the many innocent people incarcerated.
I do that with people who are falsely convicted in courts of law. It
think it's a travesty when anyone who is innocent is falsely
incarcerated.
Why are you defending what is an affront to decent Society?
You should be praying for them all.
I pray all the time, Wolfy. I pray unceasingly. In private. It's
between God an me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charly the Bastard" |
|
| Title: Re: Fighting Defeatism |
29 Sep 2006 11:49:58 AM |
|
|
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Criticizing the Bush Administration for it's handling of the fight
against terrorism and it's reasons for invading Iraq and it's handling
of that post-invasion situation (as well as the situation in
Afghanistan) is considered to be 'defeatist', or worse 'aiding and
abetting the terrorists'.
Afghanistan is battling a resurgent Taliban and NATO forces there are
calling for more troops, Iraq is experiencing an ever increasing level
of violence, Bin Laden is still unaccounted for, intelligent reports
are saying terrorism is worse now then it was 5 years ago. So in order
to be 'non-defeatist' and 'non-aiding and non-abiding' we're all
supposed to say 'We're winning'?
If you criticize, you are the enemy.
U.S.A -- R.I.P.
The founders of your country must have rolled over in their graves when
Bush's detainment and treatment legislation was passed this week. A
dark day, indeed.
Cheers!
-- Marvie
We dug them up in 2001 and strapped magnets to their corpses, then wrapped
the coffins with cable. We're getting megawatts out of them by now, which
is good, because we need all the electricity we can generate.
Charly
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Fighting Defeatism |
29 Sep 2006 12:49:47 PM |
|
|
Charly the ***** wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Criticizing the Bush Administration for it's handling of the fight
against terrorism and it's reasons for invading Iraq and it's handling
of that post-invasion situation (as well as the situation in
Afghanistan) is considered to be 'defeatist', or worse 'aiding and
abetting the terrorists'.
Afghanistan is battling a resurgent Taliban and NATO forces there are
calling for more troops, Iraq is experiencing an ever increasing level
of violence, Bin Laden is still unaccounted for, intelligent reports
are saying terrorism is worse now then it was 5 years ago. So in order
to be 'non-defeatist' and 'non-aiding and non-abiding' we're all
supposed to say 'We're winning'?
If you criticize, you are the enemy.
U.S.A -- R.I.P.
The founders of your country must have rolled over in their graves when
Bush's detainment and treatment legislation was passed this week. A
dark day, indeed.
Cheers!
-- Marvie
We dug them up in 2001 and strapped magnets to their corpses, then wrapped
the coffins with cable. We're getting megawatts out of them by now, which
is good, because we need all the electricity we can generate.
Good one. But I imagine the founding fathers would be just as divided
now as they were then -- as we are now, but we somehow manage to
operate under the Consitution they gave us. Thank God so many wise men
were all born into one generation, and that they were able to develop
that document.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charly the Bastard" |
|
| Title: Re: Fighting Defeatism |
05 Oct 2006 06:45:09 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Charly the ***** wrote:
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Criticizing the Bush Administration for it's handling of the fight
against terrorism and it's reasons for invading Iraq and it's handling
of that post-invasion situation (as well as the situation in
Afghanistan) is considered to be 'defeatist', or worse 'aiding and
abetting the terrorists'.
Afghanistan is battling a resurgent Taliban and NATO forces there are
calling for more troops, Iraq is experiencing an ever increasing level
of violence, Bin Laden is still unaccounted for, intelligent reports
are saying terrorism is worse now then it was 5 years ago. So in order
to be 'non-defeatist' and 'non-aiding and non-abiding' we're all
supposed to say 'We're winning'?
If you criticize, you are the enemy.
U.S.A -- R.I.P.
The founders of your country must have rolled over in their graves when
Bush's detainment and treatment legislation was passed this week. A
dark day, indeed.
Cheers!
-- Marvie
We dug them up in 2001 and strapped magnets to their corpses, then wrapped
the coffins with cable. We're getting megawatts out of them by now, which
is good, because we need all the electricity we can generate.
Good one. But I imagine the founding fathers would be just as divided
now as they were then -- as we are now, but we somehow manage to
operate under the Consitution they gave us. Thank God so many wise men
were all born into one generation, and that they were able to develop
that document.
True, but they should have had it engraved on titanium, so it would withstand
going through the shredder. I'm just glad that my father didn't live to see
this, he'd get out his uniform and try to uphold his Oath that he took in 1942.
Charly
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Fighting Defeatism |
29 Sep 2006 04:50:17 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 06:39:02 -0700, Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Criticizing the Bush Administration for it's handling of the fight
against terrorism and it's reasons for invading Iraq and it's handling
of that post-invasion situation (as well as the situation in
Afghanistan) is considered to be 'defeatist', or worse 'aiding and
abetting the terrorists'.
Afghanistan is battling a resurgent Taliban and NATO forces there are
calling for more troops, Iraq is experiencing an ever increasing level
of violence, Bin Laden is still unaccounted for, intelligent reports
are saying terrorism is worse now then it was 5 years ago. So in order
to be 'non-defeatist' and 'non-aiding and non-abiding' we're all
supposed to say 'We're winning'?
If you criticize, you are the enemy.
U.S.A -- R.I.P.
The founders of your country must have rolled over in their graves when
Bush's detainment and treatment legislation was passed this week. A
dark day, indeed.
Watch them all squeal when the insurgents rachet up the torture of U.S.
soldiers. Then again, maybe that's Bush's plan - get the "GoDlEsS
mUsLiMs" so riled up that they react, predictably, with more violence
against American soldiers - so Americans will get back behind whatever
Bush and Cheney say we need to accept for our own good.
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
