[linskyjack]

I use to watch Dick Weber every Saturday before the Wide World of Sports.

[bill.aam]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

I use to watch Dick Weber every Saturday before the Wide World of Sports.

[oldie]

Originally Posted by poochee

According to the Reps all Dems are liberals. Does that help you?

LOL .. how much easier it would be if you had three main political party's as is the case with ole Blighty .. Conservatives, Labour (Socialists) and Liberals, plus of course the fringe element, the Raving Lunatic Party .. rather than your polaris(z)ed two party system

Owldy

[bill.aam]

Originally Posted by oldie

LOL .. how much easier it would be if you had three main political party's as is the case with ole Blighty .. Conservatives, Labour (Socialists) and Liberals, plus of course the fringe element, the Raving Lunatic Party .. rather than your polaris(z)ed two party system

Owldy

Raving Lunatic Party = Democrat Party

[iltos]

Originally Posted by poochee

It's not hard to understand. Some attempt to use it as a bashing tool when you don't agree with their politics. They think they can intimidate others.

with all respect, tho, poochee....it works both ways....to think otherwise is just to compound the problem, imo.

[poochee]

Originally Posted by iltos

with all respect, tho, poochee....it works both ways....to think otherwise is just to compound the problem, imo.

I get bored of the insinuation that if you don't agree with this war (and I don't) you don't care about the military involved there, which is an outright lie to attempt to win the point that this is a just war (which IMO it is not).

[WarC]

To me, supporting the troops means respecting their mission and their chain of command. I believe that is the obligation of citizens while at war. Anything less hurts the effort and plays into the hands of the enemy through loss of morale, loss in recruitment, tactical stagnation, and political infighting.

[bill.aam]

Originally Posted by WarC

To me, supporting the troops means respecting their mission and their chain of command. I believe that is the obligation of citizens while at war. Anything less hurts the effort and plays into the hands of the enemy through loss of morale, loss in recruitment, tactical stagnation, and political infighting.

Great statement from one of our younger TSG'ers...

[iltos]

Originally Posted by poochee

I get bored of the insinuation that if you don't agree with this war (and I don't) you don't care about the military involved there, which is an outright lie to attempt to win the point that this is a just war (which IMO it is not).

well....i do believe i expressed something similar when i started posting in this thread this morning....but that doesn't deny that politics plays a major role in keeping this issue in turmoil

and politics is two sided.....

[sglv]

Originally Posted by BanditFlyer

Sorry, ekim, but this combination of posts is still one of the most hilarious things I've ever read.


You'll notice the difference between "the right" - that's me(in this case), and one of "many liberals I've met" - linsky. Linsky takes it upon himself to proclaim that "the right" all think in the same way and all "blindly" listen to "whatever the adminstration tells us vis a vis Iraq".

So, in this particular conversation you can easily see who likes to make blanket statements about his political opposition without regard to their individual differences. You really should try to do a better job representing "the left", linsky.

Interesting. I'm right but I question our government, I certainly do not blindly follow. But our troops have been treated very poorly by both parties. They have not been given the support they need. They have not been given "permission" to win this war and put an end to it. The troop surge should have been done two-three years ago, before the 2004 elections, giving them the resources to put an end to what has now escalated out of control. Those who spoke out in favor of getting our troops the support they needed were stomped on: Lieberman & McCain are good examples.

Now we have Walter Reed and every other VA hospital in the country under scrutiny, as they should be. Our veteran facilities were abysmal 20 years ago - nobody wanted to go to the Los Angeles VA facility and I can't blame them. It was a dismal, depressing place.

I find it interesting that the die hard liberals, turn the other cheek pacifists, and the like refuse to accept we're at war, yet they are demanding we go to Darfur and save the people there. What do they think is going on there - a love fest? I don't think so. We send our troops there and guess what, some of them are going to die. They are not just going to put their arms down and give up because we're there. They'll bide their time and re-organize and then they'll start doing the exact same thing that is happening in Iraq.

It's a sad state of affairs when our troops get more support from the people of this country through the numerous organizations established by loved ones concerned about them than from our government who put them there in the first place.

Do I support their efforts? You bet. Better to have the war there, than here. I certainly don't want to end up like Israel wondering what restaurant, or bus, or market is going to be blown up next. Do I want them there? No. I wish they didn't have to be there. But I'm not going to support bleeding them dry or forcing them to leave in defeat. It needs to be finished, and finished correctly.

[sglv]

Originally Posted by WarC

To me, supporting the troops means respecting their mission and their chain of command. I believe that is the obligation of citizens while at war. Anything less hurts the effort and plays into the hands of the enemy through loss of morale, loss in recruitment, tactical stagnation, and political infighting.

Well said

[sglv]

Originally Posted by poochee

And last but not least, any war our government places these people in should be an honest war, not a trumped up one.

Poochee, what is an honest war? I've never heard of such a thing. Was the American Revolution an honest war? I think the King would not think so. Was the Civil War an honest war? I think the slave owners would not think so. World War I, World War II - I think Germany would disagree even though they were major reasons for them.

Personally, I don't think we should have attacked Iraq, even though Saddam Hussein was thumbing his nose at us every opportunity he got, even though he was a horrible dictator and his people feared him. But we're there - honestly or not. It is the fault of the men and women who are doing the job they volunteered to do.

I agree with everything else you said.

[sglv]

Originally Posted by sglv

It is the fault of the men and women who are doing the job they volunteered to do.

Correction: It is NOT the fault of the men and women who are doing the job they volunteered to do.

[johnnyburst79]

Originally Posted by Littlefield

Yea , at least you are white in Baltimore . Is the Wire a realistic view ?

Somewhat. I have a friend who knows a dealer down near Fells Point, not a scene I would ever want to be in. There have also been some pretty bad murders down here, like find a torso in one part of town and the lower body in another.

The Wire is shot on the west side of Baltimore, a place where people like me (i.e. white) should not really ever go. Some places are ok, but you quickly learn. I felt unsafe there just driving a white CAR.

I've only seen one episode of The Wire, but just watched a few season recaps. More shootings, of course, but close.

[oldie]

Originally Posted by bill.aam

Great statement from one of our younger TSG'ers...

I'll second that sentiment even though I'm all in favour of getting our lads out of there at the earliest possible opportunity.

Oldie