Gravitymaster 0 #26 November 22, 2005 Quoteyou said: QuoteIt does when it encourages the people our troops are fighting. I know, I know, the lefties don't believe it does with Al Qaeda, but on that point we will have to just disagree. Perhaps we can agree it affected the Vietnamese? Quote "We were not strong enough to drive out a half-million American troops, but that wasn't our aim. Our intention was to break the will of the American government to continue the war."--North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap, in a 1990 interview with historian Stanley Karnow. Quote Little hard to deny this reality when it comes to Iraq isn't it? bill said in response: Quote Wow. I can remember when all the GOPers were saying that Iraq has nothing in common with Vietnam. Now those same people are comparing the two. Recently a few GOP commentators have accidentally said "Vietnam" when they meant to say "Iraq." Makes me think the future might not be as rosy as those commentators paint it. and then you said: QuoteNice little non-sequitur spin, Bill. non-sequitur: 1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence. 2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it. You compared Iraq to Vietnam by way of American dissent to the war. Bill just followed up on that. Hardly a non-sequitur. Wrong, Bill's reference was to the "quagmire" comparison between Vietnam and Iraq. Mine point had nothing to do with his reply. Thus non-sequitur. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #27 November 22, 2005 Yeah, that is what I thought you would say. Unfortunately, you opened the door into Vietnam/Iraq comparisons. Since he was pointing out media change on that topic, it was connected. And he said nothing about quagmire. You just did in an assumption that that is what he meant. Its okay, we all make mistakes in our verve to write someone off. Lets hold hands now and sing.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #28 November 22, 2005 QuoteDisrespectful rhetoric to the point it encourages our enemies isn't. I disagreed with Clinton at the time we were at war in Bosnia, but I never called him names and I didn't appreciate those who did at that time. You don't like the harsh words which is fine. Not everyone can speak with big words and do the Beltway 2-step. It doesn't lessen the opinion or how patriotic it is. In war an enemy will use anything to their favor. If they found a dissenting view that works with their spin they will use it. In fact, using an educated conflicting view could help out more. Plus anything we do as a country will be used to fuel their fire. You cannot walk on eggshells because they may over hear a news cast. To start putting limitations upon it can lead to censorship._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #29 November 22, 2005 >Wrong, Bill's reference was to the "quagmire" comparison between Vietnam and Iraq. No "quagmire" was suggested or implied. You suggested a comparison between Vietnam and Iraq. I noted the irony, given that at one point the popular line was "Vietnam and Iraq have nothing to do with each other!" Looks like you think they do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #30 November 22, 2005 QuoteYeah, that is what I thought you would say. Unfortunately, you opened the door into Vietnam/Iraq comparisons. Since he was pointing out media change on that topic, it was connected. And he said nothing about quagmire. You just did in an assumption that that is what he meant. Its okay, we all make mistakes in our verve to write someone off. Lets hold hands now and sing. Sorry you can't/won't see the difference. Whatever, dude. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #31 November 22, 2005 QuoteQuoteYeah, that is what I thought you would say. Unfortunately, you opened the door into Vietnam/Iraq comparisons. Since he was pointing out media change on that topic, it was connected. And he said nothing about quagmire. You just did in an assumption that that is what he meant. Its okay, we all make mistakes in our verve to write someone off. Lets hold hands now and sing. Sorry you can't/won't see the difference. Whatever, dude. Sorry you chose the wrong word to use due to the implications you made without cause. So, what shall we sing? I am thinking "Paint it Black".Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #32 November 22, 2005 Quote>Wrong, Bill's reference was to the "quagmire" comparison between Vietnam and Iraq. No "quagmire" was suggested or implied. You suggested a comparison between Vietnam and Iraq. I noted the irony, given that at one point the popular line was "Vietnam and Iraq have nothing to do with each other!" Looks like you think they do. Except you said: QuoteWow. I can remember when all the GOPers were saying that Iraq has nothing in common with Vietnam. Which is a direct reference to "quagmire". Since that was what the GOPers were refering to when they said there was no comparison. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #33 November 22, 2005 >Which is a direct reference to "quagmire". Since that was what the >GOPers were refering to when they said there was no comparison. OK, so the GOPers think Iraq is a quagmire. Fine. Can we go back to bashing someone now? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #34 November 22, 2005 Quote>Which is a direct reference to "quagmire". Since that was what the >GOPers were refering to when they said there was no comparison. OK, so the GOPers think Iraq is a quagmire. Fine. Can we go back to bashing someone now? Might as well since this conversation isn't going anywhere. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #35 November 22, 2005 QuoteQuote It does when it encourages the people our troops are fighting. I know, I know, the lefties don't believe it does with Al Qaeda, but on that point we will have to just disagree. Perhaps we can agree it affected the Vietnamese? If it is the will and voice of the American people....then it must be heard no matter what they are saying. Trying to keep something quiet can and will have a much larger negative impact in the long run. What if the will of the people has been shewed by a non-ending stream of non-truths?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #36 November 22, 2005 QuoteQuoteDisrespectful rhetoric to the point it encourages our enemies isn't. I disagreed with Clinton at the time we were at war in Bosnia, but I never called him names and I didn't appreciate those who did at that time. You don't like the harsh words which is fine. Not everyone can speak with big words and do the Beltway 2-step. It doesn't lessen the opinion or how patriotic it is. In war an enemy will use anything to their favor. If they found a dissenting view that works with their spin they will use it. In fact, using an educated conflicting view could help out more. Plus anything we do as a country will be used to fuel their fire. You cannot walk on eggshells because they may over hear a news cast. To start putting limitations upon it can lead to censorship. I don't disagree with you entirely. I'm just trying to say that you are more likely to be listened to if your approach is less hateful and doesn't encourage our enemies. I believe if those who engage in the hyped up rhetoric really thought about the consequences, they wouldn't be as shrill. I have many disagreements about the way Bush is conducting the war. I can't understand why it is taking so long to get Iraqi Security Forces trained. I think we should have more troops over there instead. I have many more disagreements but I'm not standing here screaming the President is a liar, and idiot etc. I have written my Senators and Congressman frequently and expressed my disapproval. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #37 November 22, 2005 I believe he only compared a tactic, not the conflicts"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #38 November 22, 2005 QuoteWhat if the will of the people has been shewed by a non-ending stream of non-truths? Sometimes, you have some moments of serious brilliance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #39 November 22, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuote It does when it encourages the people our troops are fighting. I know, I know, the lefties don't believe it does with Al Qaeda, but on that point we will have to just disagree. Perhaps we can agree it affected the Vietnamese? If it is the will and voice of the American people....then it must be heard no matter what they are saying. Trying to keep something quiet can and will have a much larger negative impact in the long run. What if the will of the people has been shewed by a non-ending stream of non-truths? Like the 2003 State of the Union Address to Congress and the people. A whole lot of untruths in there.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #40 November 22, 2005 Thanks, we will get the Dems straightened out eventually"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #41 November 22, 2005 Sorry you feel that way but I am confident you are not correct in that post......"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #42 November 22, 2005 QuoteThanks, we will get the Dems straightened out eventually And in an instant, the once radiant ember is snuffed by an onslaught of runny poo. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #43 November 22, 2005 "Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage moral and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged"-President Abraham Lincoln But then again, what did Lincoln know about freedoms? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #44 November 22, 2005 >But then again, what did Lincoln know about freedoms? About as much a Roosevelt knew about being president, presumably. "The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #45 November 22, 2005 QuoteNothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." I particuarly agree with this. Did FDR make this speech while we were at war? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #46 November 22, 2005 QuoteAlmost every Axis broadcast -- Berlin, Rome, Tokyo -- directly quotes Americans who, by speech or in the press, make damnable misstatements such as these. The American people realize that in many cases details of military operations cannot be disclosed until we are absolutely certain that the announcement will not give to the enemy military information which he does not already possess. Your Government has unmistakable confidence in your ability to hear the worst, without flinching or losing heart. You must, in turn, have complete confidence that your Government is keeping nothing from you except information that will help the enemy in his attempt to destroy us. In a democracy there is always a solemn pact of truth between government and the people, but there must also always be a full use of discretion, and that word " discretion" applies to the critics of government as well. This is war. The American people want to know, and will be told, the general trend of how the war is going. But they do not wish to help the enemy any more than our fighting forces do, and they will pay little attention to the rumor-mongers and the poison peddlers in our midst. Since you like FDR's speeches so much, what do you think of this excerpt? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #47 November 22, 2005 "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #48 November 22, 2005 Quote"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage moral and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged"-President Abraham Lincoln But then again, what did Lincoln know about freedoms? That was his opinion and thankfully he is free to say so. However, I fully disagree and I don't remember any admendment that comes close to this. People in power NEED to be challenged. Even the good ones._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #49 November 22, 2005 QuoteI don't disagree with you entirely. I'm just trying to say that you are more likely to be listened to if your approach is less hateful and doesn't encourage our enemies. I believe if those who engage in the hyped up rhetoric really thought about the consequences, they wouldn't be as shrill. I agree that an educated approach is more civil. However, the message is still the same - the medium has changed. Therefore neither are unpatriotic. Both are protected. QuoteI have many disagreements about the way Bush is conducting the war. I can't understand why it is taking so long to get Iraqi Security Forces trained. I think we should have more troops over there instead. I have many more disagreements but I'm not standing here screaming the President is a liar, and idiot etc. I have written my Senators and Congressman frequently and expressed my disapproval. Sometimes to get the attention of those that place themselves above the rest of the populace.....you need to make more noise to get their attention. Look at the Mom that placed herself outside Bush's ranch. It wasn't perfect, it wasnt the most civil, it wasn't unpatriotic.....but it made waves._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #50 November 22, 2005 Quote*** In a democracy there is always a solemn pact of truth between government and the people, but there must also always be a full use of discretion, and that word " discretion" applies to the critics of government as well. When a government has a long track record of telling untruths, it becomes very hard to believe in the "solemn pact of truth', wouldn't you say? Does "discretion" also mean overlooking such untruths?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
