The War in Iraq

[VanLingo]

Skin, the fact that I was flamed for my point of view has still not been corrected. And the fact that you mods would rather spend all day and night writing one post (which is far beyond the word count limit, Mr. Louisiana Cop) than moderating threads is evident.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by VanLingo

Skin, the fact that I was flamed for my point of view has still not been corrected. And the fact that you mods would rather spend all day and night writing one post (which is far beyond the word count limit, Mr. Louisiana Cop) than moderating threads is evident.

 

How about an official appology from me. I am sorry that someone flamed you and it was apparently really hurtful.

 

Now that that's done, you can actually try to address all those points that Skinwalker so deftly tore apart

[VanLingo]

You weren't the one that flamed me.

 

And the only points that Skin addressed to me didn't even argue my original points. All he did was make a judgemental statement and call me a stereotyper, both of which diverted the original points.

 

My posts were that you -- ET -- did not have enough respect for the sacrifice that our troops are willing to make for our country. That is not something that can be argued -- whether or not you care about the people themselves, it's obvious that you've never bothered to ponder what they believe. And they're the ones who are actually doing something about it.

 

The first time I hear a soldier say, "The War in Iraq was not worth fighting", I'll vote for John Kerry.

And I'm not talking about some food inspections officer, or reserves, or whatever SkinWalker was. I'm talking about a combat-experienced soldier, the real patriots.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by VanLingo

The first time I hear a soldier say, "The War in Iraq was not worth fighting", I'll vote for John Kerry.

And I'm not talking about some food inspections officer, or reserves, or whatever SkinWalker was. I'm talking about a combat-experienced soldier, the real patriots.

 

"Real Patriots"? Oh please, most of them just signed up for the army as a way out and to get some money fast. It's a profession, a job, like any other. Furthermore, I can't see how they're "defending" USA with this little sandbox war. Hussein was so obviously not a threat to you.

 

And I suggest you do some research on desillusioned soldiers. There's very little media coverage in the states on the disappointed side that's angry for having their sons and daughters sent to fight a war they don't believe in. There are hundreds of deserters already, but they're tucked away in a nice, safe place where the media don't give a hoot about them.

 

I find it fascinating that you worship trained killers like this, and label them "patriots". Tell me, aren't the supply lines, food makers, weapon smiths and artillery guys not just as important to winning this war? Do you have to look the enemy in the eye as you shoot him and get your brain numbed down to the reptile level from psychological damage to be considered a "True Patriot"? And what about the people who take care of your nation's kids, teach them and tell them to avoid drugs and practice abstinence-sex, the ones who deliver your pizzas, the ones who entertain you through violent games that instruct you to celebrate M4's and 105mm, the women who sell themselves on the street and the wage-slaves? Do they not deserve to get called "Patriots" as well?

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by VanLingo

Skin, the fact that I was flamed for my point of view has still not been corrected.

 

Hmm... I'll go back and look for it. In the mean time, could you cite the post number? Just hover your mouse over the "report post" button and there should be a six digit number at the end of the link displayed.

 

Originally posted by VanLingo

And the fact that you mods would rather spend all day and night writing one post

 

I must admit... it took about a half-hour to forty-five minutes... longer than I would have liked, but I write a lot outside of LF, so when I get on a roll...

 

Originally posted by VanLingo

(which is far beyond the word count limit, Mr. Louisiana Cop)

 

"Word count limit?" A new rule I was unaware of? And I'm not sure what the "Louisiana Cop" reference is about. I live in Texas.

 

Originally posted by VanLingo

than moderating threads is evident.

 

I've seen no evidence that threads in the Senate require additional moderation. If you see something I miss, click that "report post" button and I'll check it.

 

Originally posted by VanLingo

And I'm not talking about some food inspections officer, or reserves, or whatever SkinWalker was. I'm talking about a combat-experienced soldier, the real patriots.

 

Heh... I didn't catch your own MOS. What did you say it was? In fact, I don't recall mentioning that I was a "food inspections officer." Did you make that comment as an insult perhaps?

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by VanLingo

My posts were that you -- ET -- did not have enough respect for the sacrifice that our troops are willing to make for our country. That is not something that can be argued --

 

Bull. I have enormous respect for the troops. I simply have no respect for the man that sent them to fight a war that I dont believe in. I guess that fact that I don't like war and I think killing people is a BAD thing makes me unpatriotic. Well so be it. I really don't care.

[VanLingo]

The thread with the flame has been edited. Thank you.

 

ET -- It's funny to watch you debate. It's like you have the little Handbook of Internet Debates next to your keyboard.

 

1. Post a forceful rebuttal to the original post. When this fails:

2. Offer a compromise to try and retain your image ("I did send peaches...") When this fails:

3. Flame. When this fails:

4. Get the thread moved. When this fails:

5. Throw in the towel. ("It's only an internet debate anyway. Even though two pages ago I was among the majority of Americans, now I don't care.")

[ET Warrior]

And I enjoy the way you mock everyone who brings up points against you without ever actually refuting any statements. You cannot argue and so you insult and make stuff up.

 

1.)Not sure that my rebuttals have ever failed, perhaps you could point out where that happened.

 

2)There was no compromise, I was merely addressing your incorrect assumptions about my character

 

3)I don't believe I've ever REALLY flamed anyone on these boards, and you yourself said a couple posts ago that it was not I who flamed you.

 

4)Darth Groovy moved the thread, I had no hand in that whatsoever

 

5)I am not throwing in any towel, I'm merely saying that if you want to believe me unpatriotic you are free to do so. You refuse to listen to my arguments that prove otherwise, so what's the point in re-stating what I've already said.

 

 

I'd also like to point out that you have not addressed asingle point that was brought up against you, you seem to be skirting around the issues and merely trying to insult me/skinwalker.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by VanLingo

4. Get the thread moved. When this fails:

wow.... I thought we had gotten rid of the people this thick headed. This thread is clearly a debate, therefore it was moved to the designated debate forum. But then again, you're probably ignore this just like all other posts made against you.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by yaebginn

Here's why I dont like Kerry.

 

1. He marries for money, not love.

 

Your evidence to support that? Can't it rich women have husbands that love them? Kerry wasn't exactly in the poorhouse when he met her after all.

 

Originally posted by yaebginn

2. He switches sides alot.

 

An anti-Kerry fallacy. Actually, what the Republican's consider as proof of Kerry's "flip-flop" nature usually comes in the form of his wanting real progress or reform in a particular bill. Take the "No Child Left Behind" act: The Bush admin ran an ad (Milbank & Vandehei, 2004), which claimed that Kerry now opposes that which he once supported. The ad uses and editorial comment in the Manchester Union Leader (editorial, 8/11/03) to make the point. But what the ad doesn't say is that 1) the info is based on an editorial opinion rather than fact or, 2) that Kerry says he still supports the goals of Bush's No Child Left Behind Act but wants some changes to improve it, and more money than Bush has provided.

 

While the anti-Kerry crowd are willing to accept actions like this as proof of "waffeling" or "flip-flopping," it seems clear to me that we have a candidate now in office that is unbending and refuses to revise policy or admit mistakes despite the advent of new information and another candidate that is running for the same office that will listen to what people have to say, weigh evidence and improve policy and decisions based new information.

 

I'm a huge proponent of the scientific method and Kerry, my friend, more closely adheres to it than Bush. You might call it flip-flopping or "switching sides," but I call it listening to your constituents and making policy based on evidence and revision where necessary rather than merely blowing your political party's horn.

 

Originally posted by yaebginn

3. He blows his wartime experoence out of preportion.

 

Others do. I've not heard Kerry talk it up too much. Again, as I see it there are two distinct differences between the sitting candidate and the challenging one: Kerry was actually in the bush during his military service; Bush was sipping martini's at the officer's club and missing training sessions for his part-time soldier job.

 

Originally posted by yaebginn

4. He's a democrat, and while alot are ok, my nature is to dislike them as a whole.

 

Why? Are you one to accept a belief system imposed upon you by the most influential members of the society around you simply because it's what they believe? Or have you arrived at your political alignment for logical reasons?

 

Personally, I see Republican/Democratic political parties as something the politicians need worry about. I'll pick and choose among them as I see fit based on their stance on the issues important to their level of office. Many of the candidates I'll be voting for this November will be Republican. Most will be Democrat.

 

If all goes well, by 2008 John McCain will be the presidential candidate for the Republican Party and my vote will go to this man (assuming he continues to hold the same values and opinions).

 

We too often side ourselves in important aspects of our lives based on fallacy and belief rather than empiricism and critical thinking. This doesn't just manifest itself in politics, but in religion, science, school issues, social issues, etc.

 

Critical thinking and seeing past the baloney is key. Both sides of the Presidential Campaign are going to use fallacy to support their claims. We've got to see past that.

 

References

 

Editorial (8/11/03) "Waffle house: Democrats pander to special interests," The Union Leader Section A10

 

Kerry, John (2004). "Resources And Reform For Our Schools," http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/education/resources.html

 

_________ (2004b). "The Kerry-Edwards Plan For One Million More Americans To Graduate High School," http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/education/graduation.html

 

Milbank, Dana & VandeHei, Jim (5/31/04). Bush Campaign Accents the Negative: Scholars say volume of attacks is unprecedented Washingtonpost.com (paragraph 30)

[yaebginn]

Mccain does rock hard, yes. But one thing, Kerry votes for the war, then doesnt vote to fund it. whats that about? I was originally a republican because of the leaders around me, then I grew up and smarter and saw that the republicans are in the right. He does marry for money. first wife, rich, second rich, it doesnt take rocket science. No, it is blown way out of preportion. Only two of his 'wartime buddies' even support him. TWO. The rest are either dead or dont like him because he is full of himself. He reinacted battles filmed by his own camera he brought specifically so he could use it ro run for congress, then senate, now president. His 'buddies' think he self inflicted a wound to get a purple heart so he could get out of the war. Cause his got an M79 wound when they werent under fire and he was the olny one who fired an M79. And I do like most democrats as people, but not as political competitors. Its the way I was brought up. I am a republican, I dont agree with the democrats views.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by yaebginn

Only two of his 'wartime buddies' even support him. TWO. The rest are either dead or dont like him because he is full of himself. He reinacted battles filmed by his own camera he brought specifically so he could use it ro run for congress, then senate, now president. His 'buddies' think he self inflicted a wound to get a purple heart so he could get out of the war. Cause his got an M79 wound when they werent under fire and he was the olny one who fired an M79.

for once in your life could you finally post some proof to support this? I feel we've been asking this for too long and have yet to get anything supporting such.

 

 

welcome to the senate by the way, enjoy your stay.

[yaebginn]

u want proof?

http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php

SHABAM

[El Sitherino]

interesting, but do you have any other places to support this? Because it helps to have something else to confirm that this isn't just one group that just wants a chance at pot-shotting a candidate.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by yaebginn

He does marry for money. first wife, rich, second rich, it doesnt take rocket science.

 

Have you ever stopped to think maybe, since Kerry is a moderately wealthy fellow to begin with, and being a part of the gonverment means you run around in high circles. That means the people that you MEET are people who are WEALTHY, and therefore the WOMEN he meets would be RICH women.

 

It doesn't take rocket science to deduce that it's much more likely to end up married ot a rich person when you spend most of your time around rich people

 

 

We also should know that it IS in fact possible to love someone, even if they are rich.

[VanLingo]

Well, ET, that is my given right to do so. Thank God for the men who fight to keep it that way.

[Darth Groovy]

Originally posted by ET Warrior

 

4)Darth Groovy moved the thread, I had no hand in that whatsoever

 

Yes, I did this. I feel an explaination is in order. Allow me.

 

I take you back to 2003. The place now know as Yoda's Swamp, was an off topic forum, nothing more. With the release of Jedi Outcast and Jedi Academy, the place became rather popular! Alot of serious debates were started, and for all sakes an purposes, the standard Yoda's Swamp members (now lovingly refered to as "Swampies") were not ready for this sort of thing. Although good points were brought up, alot of the standard members resorted to flaming and bickering, and so many, MANY threads got closed. It was initially C'Jais who suggested the need for a seperate forum where those seeking serious politcal debate, could participate. (not everyone who talks polotics results in insulting one another) For this reason, the "Senate Chambers" were created. First it was just a "test", but it seemed to work. Shortly after, Skinwalker was requested to join as Moderator.

 

Now you must note that both C'Jais and Skinwalker have the powers to close, and delete threads. However, what they do in the Senate, is try to rationalize and keep respective threads on topic. Very seldom do they close a thread here, and when they do it is far past waranted.

 

Please note that not ALL mods are geared towards political issues. Most of us just try to keep spam out, and keep threads on topic. On a thread such as this, when it has expunged it's purpose in a given forum, it gets moved to here, where the moderators of politics (Skinwalker and C'Jais) take over. This forum is rare, and for the most part it works.

 

I moved this thread because it was turning into a flamewar at SWBF. In THIS forum, it can be a healthy debate.

 

Vanlingo, your only crime is insulting mods. You really should get out of that habbit. We happen to stick together, and defend one another when the needed.

 

Please note, that the moving of this thread was NOT at all designed as an insult, attack, or dig. I just felt that your topic would prove more valid here, and Skin, and 'Jais have what it takes to keep it clean and healthy.

 

I have my personal opinions on Bush and the Iraq war. Personally, I saw all of this coming, and despite my vote on the last election, i've had no choice but to sit back and watch everything that I already prediced.

 

As for politics, I have my opinions, but I normally fold under pressure. This is where Skin and 'Jais come in.

 

Bottom line; if you treat them with respect, they WILL respect you, regardless of your opinions and/or social standings. This I promise you.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by VanLingo

Well, ET, that is my given right to do so. Thank God for the men who fight to keep it that way.

 

And you know what, I acknowledge your right to not attempt to argue with Skin or myself or Sith or 'Jais or anyone who brought up good points against you, especially since it seems you have no knack for debate. It just seems rather pointless to visit a debate forum if you don't actually plan on debating

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by yaebginn

I was originally a republican because of the leaders around me, then I grew up and smarter and saw that the republicans are in the right. He does marry for money. first wife, rich, second rich, it doesnt take rocket science.... Only two of his 'wartime buddies' even support him. TWO. The rest are either dead or dont like him because he is full of himself. He reinacted battles filmed by his own camera he brought specifically so he could use it ro run for congress, then senate, now president. His 'buddies' think he self inflicted a wound to get a purple heart so he could get out of the war. And I do like most democrats as people, but not as political competitors. Its the way I was brought up. I am a republican, I dont agree with the democrats views.

 

None of these statements were based on empiricism, but rather a priori notions and assumptions. You hear the opinions and views of others around you, in other words.

 

I was much like this when I was younger. Now, I look for the evidence and discard that which cannot be empirically supported. Do I like Kerry? Sure. He's okay as politicians go, but I like and trust Bush a whole lot less based on the empirical evidence.

 

Originally posted by yaebginn

Cause his got an M79 wound when they werent under fire and he was the olny one who fired an M79.

 

Here's a good example. Rather than assume that correlation equals causation, think logically about the situation you've presented. The M79 is a grenade launcher. How does one get wounded (on purpose?) by his own grenade launcher designed to lob a 40mm grenade a minimum of 50 meters? This weapon by the way was standard issue to just about anyone who took point.

 

Moreover, "an M79" wound is basically a shrapnel wound or wound caused by an exploding charge (grenade, landmine, mortar, etc.). I know of no way to assign a specific weapon to this type of wound. Perhaps someone took his M79 and beat over the head with it?

[yaebginn]

maybe I got ikt wrong, then. but it was M something and he did self inflict it. click th elink I posted and check it out, it says there, I think under awards. no, I was right, it was M-79. He says his M-16 jammed, so he picked up an M-79 and fired it too close to the boat. a piece of shrapnel got caught in his hand, even though they werent under fire.

[VanLingo]

Originally posted by ET Warrior

And you know what, I acknowledge your right to not attempt to argue with Skin or myself or Sith or 'Jais or anyone who brought up good points against you, especially since it seems you have no knack for debate. It just seems rather pointless to visit a debate forum if you don't actually plan on debating

I am debating. I debate every credible and/or important issue you bring up.

So far, you're just throwing me things that don't matter. I'm going to vote Republican because it's more of what this country needs. You're going to vote Democrat because all of the dead people, convicted felons, retired Floridians, and homeless people do (thank you, Mr. Gore...).

 

People are not going to change their opinions on these things because we argue about them. It's not a question of right or wrong, it's a question of priority. (Tax cuts or HealthCare? National security or lower gas prices? Jobs or welfare? Second-generation Commander-in-Chief or frag-myself Vietnam veteran?)

My opinion is there. I'm afraid that your "debating expertise" is not enough to sway what I believe in -- which happens to be along the same lines as our current president.

 

I know that I come off as offensive. But at least I'm not being smug about it. Your disdain for other people is all over your posts, and to be honest -- I don't care to have your idea of a leader running the country. Whether or not I spend four hours a day "backing up" my beliefs is inconsequential.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by VanLingo

I am debating. I debate every credible and/or important issue you bring up.

So far, you're just throwing me things that don't matter. I'm going to vote Republican because it's more of what this country needs. You're going to vote Democrat because all of the dead people, convicted felons, retired Floridians, and homeless people do (thank you, Mr. Gore...).

actually I believe most of what they respond with is refuting your posts. But since you refuse to prove your points and resort to mild insults, I suggest you stop coming here. Atleast until you learn the proper way to debate.

 

the purpose of debate is not to sway. but to state your opinion INTELLIGENTLY and politely, you have yet to do so. Skin has nothing but the upmost respect for proper debaters regardless of if they agree on things or not.

 

You come in here with this " I dont' care what you think" attitude, not the proper debate attitude. We don't debate to sway, we debate to strengthen our own convictions and our thoughts. To expand our minds, vocabulary and thought process.

 

 

and no, you aren't smug, [deleted] you have what I believe to be severe social issues. Not because of your beliefs, but you seem to go out of your way to make everyone angry at you.

 

Back off a little Sith. I can take the heat... don't insult members just because they piss you off. Find your happy place.

[VanLingo]

Whoa, dude, don't get your blood-pressure up

 

I see no need to be conformative. This is a debate thread, right? Well, I am free to throw out whatever debate points I want. You claim that I have no solid points, but you want to dispute everything I say.

If it's just going to be a shouting match, then why should I add more than two cents?

 

If I am upsetting you... cut down on the coffee.

[ET Warrior]

You claim that I have no solid points, but you want to dispute everything I say.

Well...yeah, we dispute what you say because it's not a solid point, and easy for us to refute it, and then you are unable to come back with any solid evidence or arguments to support it. That's the way debate is supposed to work, but YOU just argue something ELSE everytime.

[toms]

hmm.. as someone who has wandered into this thread as a casual observer i have to point out to VanLingo that he IS coming across as a fool and a petulant kid by refusing to back up any of his arguments. But then it can be easy to get caught up in your own righteousness on these sort of debates... i suppose...

 

As for that SwiftVets site, every impartial news source has found them to be a load of rubbish. They are funded by a big republican donor. One guy in it has already said he lied. John McCain (a republican who was in vietnam) has called it a lie and said he respects JKs record. Even the bush won't back it (although they are refusing to condemn it, which is pretty cheap).

 

Just goes to show how you should research your sources.... otherwise you come off worse than you were before.

 

PS/ I've seen loads of interviews with US frontline combat troops (some injured, some still serving, some who have come back) who are all against the war.... so i guess that means you will be voting for Kerry then?

Of course, you could probably say they are all non-patriots, but then that means you definition of "non-patriot" is anyone who doesn't support the war... which is innaccurate, unfair and means you can't loose???